theKDreport.com    News is more than a sound bite®

 

INTERNET NEWS

I Was Trailed By A Private Investigator

"Constantly being watched in secret can be almost paralyzing—even for a longtime investigative journalist. So who from my past was paying this P.I. to follow me?"

LINK HERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator Feinstein and CIA Brennan not so secret brouhaha

American’s expect, even know, many politicians stretch the truth or outright lie, but when it comes to government intelligence agencies, taxpayers expect honest oversight from those lawmakers. The latest national security brouhaha between Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan and Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Diane Feinstein revealed the deep distrust between elected officials and those charged with protecting America.

In a rubber meets the road moment last week, Feinstein aired her frustrations with the CIA. Her deliberate speech alerted the Senate that closed door hearings and investigations into CIA programs were allegedly compromised by the covert agency spying on Senate Committee investigators. Brennan countered Feinstein’s allegation with another accusation that it was the Senate staff that illegally took a classified material from the CIA.

Watch San Diego 6 News segment here

The Senate 30-minute speech accused the CIA of lying, stealing and cheating to block a 6,300-page report conducted by former CIA Director Leon Panetta on CIA secret prisons and torture. “I have grave concerns that the CIA’s search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.”

NSA leaker Edward Snowden marveled at the Congressional hypocrisy. “It’s clear the CIA was trying to play ‘keep away’ with documents relevant to an investigation by their overseers in Congress, and that’s a serious constitutional concern,” Snowden said to NBC News. “But it’s equally if not more concerning that we’re seeing another ‘Merkel Effect,’ where an elected official does not care at all that the rights of millions of ordinary citizens are violated by our spies, but suddenly it’s a scandal when a politician finds out the same thing happens to them.”

Feinstein makes her case

Over the past week, numerous articles written about the Intelligence Committee’s oversight review of the “Detention and Interrogation Program of the CIA” report, highlighted a possible CIA intrusion into the Senate Select Committee’s computers as well as the committee’s acquisition of an internal CIA document known as the Panetta Review sent Senator Feinstein to the floor with an impassioned speech.

“The significance of the Internal Review given disparities between it and the June 2013 CIA response to the committee study. The Internal Panetta Review summary now at the secure committee office in the (Senate) Hart Building is an especially significant document as it corroborates critical information in the committee’s 6,300-page Study that the CIA’s official response either objects to, denies, minimizes, or ignores.

In late 2013, I requested in writing that the CIA provide a final and complete version of the Internal Panetta Review to the committee, as opposed to the partial document the committee currently possesses.

In December, during an open committee hearing, Senator Mark Udall echoed this request. In early January 2014, the CIA informed the committee it would not provide the Internal Panetta Review to the committee, citing the deliberative nature of the document.

Shortly thereafter, on January 15, 2014, CIA Director Brennan requested an emergency meeting to inform me and Vice Chairman Chambliss that without prior notification or approval, CIA personnel had conducted a “search”—that was John Brennan’s word—of the committee computers at the offsite facility. This search involved not only a search of documents provided to the committee by the CIA, but also a search of the ”stand alone” and “walled-off” committee network drive containing the committee’s own internal work product and communications.

“According to Brennan, the computer search was conducted in response to indications that some members of the committee staff might already have had access to the Internal Panetta Review. The CIA did not ask the committee or its staff if the committee had access to the Internal Review, or how we obtained it,” Feinstein explained.

“Instead, the CIA just went and searched the committee’s computers. The CIA has still not asked the committee any questions about how the committee acquired the Panetta Review. In place of asking any questions, the CIA’s unauthorized search of the committee computers was followed by an allegation—which we have now seen repeated anonymously in the press—that the committee staff had somehow obtained the document through unauthorized or criminal means, perhaps to include hacking into the CIA’s computer network.

As I have described, this is not true. The document was made available to the staff at the offsite facility, and it was located using a CIA-provided search tool running a query of the information provided to the committee pursuant to its investigation.

Director Brennan stated that the CIA’s search had determined that the committee staff had copies of the Internal Panetta Review on the committee’s “staff shared drive” and had accessed them numerous times. He indicated at the meeting that he was going to order further “forensic” investigation of the committee network to learn more about activities of the committee’s oversight staff.

Two days after the meeting, on January 17, I wrote a letter to Director Brennan objecting to any further CIA investigation due to the separation of powers constitutional issues that the search raised. I followed this with a second letter on January 23 to the director, asking 12 specific questions about the CIA’s actions—questions that the CIA has refused to answer.”

In response, current CIA Director John Brennan said, “If I did something wrong, I will go to the president and I will explain to him exactly what I did, what the findings were, and he is the one who can ask me to stay or to go.”

The CIA's spokesperson in Langley, Virginia, Dean Boyd, elaborated a bit further on the differences between the Senate Intelligence chairwoman.

“The CIA conducted a thorough review of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program and presented an extensive written response to the committee in June 2013,” he wrote in a USA Today. “The CIA’s response agreed with a number of the findings of the report, but disagreed with others. Since that time, we have worked extensively with the committee to resolve differences and determine the best way forward on potential declassification and we will continue to do so.”

“In recent months, the CIA had reason to believe, based on comments and correspondence from Intelligence Committee members and staff to CIA officials, that committee staff may have improperly accessed and retained sensitive CIA documents that were stored on a CIA local area network," Boyd continued. "These documents were privileged, deliberative, pre-decisional Executive Branch material that implicated separation of powers concerns. The CIA quickly notified the committee leadership and requested that copies of these materials be returned.”

President Obama refused to comment specifically on the lying allegations but did say; “With respect to the issues that are going back and forth between the Senate committee and the CIA, John Brennan has referred them to the appropriate authorities and they are looking into it and that’s not something that is an appropriate role for me and the White House to wade into at this point.”

However the president did wade into the IRS internal review and declared there was not a smidgen of corruption even though the report has not been finalized.

The White House statement did little to calm other Senate Intelligence Committee members. Senator Jay Rockefeller said, “As our 6,300 pages show, there’s a hell of a lot lying going on, to the White House, to everybody,” referring to a lengthy Intelligence Committee report on the interrogation and detention of suspected terrorists during Bush’s administration.

While it’s true that Democrats have tried and failed for years to learn more about the controversial interrogation “waterboarding” program, the CIA has been in the care of Democrats for the last five years and conceivably it could have released any wrongdoing by now. Insiders say the lack of transparency indicates both parties and high-ranking CIA officials knew and endorsed the contentious interrogation program.

The House Oversight Committee Chairman told Breitbart News, “I think Senator Feinstein is as outraged as anyone and I share her outrage. I think the violation of the Constitutional separation of powers should be an offense of the highest level—virtually treason. I don’t know who gave the orders, but to spy on other branches is in fact a constitutional violation at the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and certainly should cause the removal of anyone involved.”

The Senate spat that erupted last week triggered both organizations to file grievances with the Department of Justice, which refrained from weighing in until today. “We get referrals all the time. The fact that we get a referral does not necessarily mean we make a decision that we’re going to investigate on the basis of that referral,” Attorney General Eric Holder said today. “And so, we are looking at the matters that have been referred to us before we make any determinations about what action, if any, the Justice Department will take.”

Spying and lying

Americans were first introduced to the depth of intelligence agencies' spying inside the US when Edward Snowden began to release his treasure trove of documents exposing the extra-curricular activities of the NSA.

Shortly after that revelation, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden asked if the NSA collects data on millions or 100s of millions of Americans? Director of National Intelligence James Clapper famously said, “No sir, it does not, not wittingly. There are cases where we could inadvertently, perhaps.” The stumbling answer appeared to catch the DNI director off guard, however Clapper was given the question from Senator Wyden ahead of time, leaving many perplexed why he flat out lied to Congress and why no perjury charges were filed?

The Osama bin Laden raid in Pakistan provides another example of the government trying to hide details of questionable activities. During the actual Osama bin Laden covert operation, President Obama proved his “acting aplomb” by collecting applause for one liners at the White House Correspondents dinner, demonstrating his ease with distracting an admiring media.

However, shortly after the OBL killing, the military recognized an aggressive media might want more details of the daring raid and acted to ensure secrecy. US Special Operations Commander Adm. William McRaven quickly moved to destroy photos of the dead terrorist. A Freedom of Information Act request was filed by Judicial Watch that revealed, 11 days after the event, Adm. McRaven sent an email to subordinates directing them to either destroy or send the all-photographic evidence to the CIA. Hints of the email first surfaced in a Pentagon inspector general’s draft report, but the final report failed to include McRaven’s request.

According to McRaven’s mostly blacked-out email, “One particular item that I want to emphasize is photos; particularly UBLs remains. At this point - all photos should have been turned over to the CIA; if you still have them destroy them immediately or get them” blacked-out. A CIA spokesman said, “Documents related to the raid were handled in a manner consistent with the fact that the operation was conducted under the direction of the CIA director (Leon Panetta). The records of a CIA operation such as the raid, which were created during the conduct of the operation by persons acting under the authority of the CIA director, are CIA records.”

The National Archives was unaware of the inter-agency transfer of the records as required by federal law.

The fading Snowden affect

Further unveiling of government spying on Americans came last year from Edward Snowden. His leaked documents lit up the Internet and opened eyes to a vast internal surveillance program. It publicized nothing was private anymore.

For months the Obama administration had been playing defense on the NSA spying programs. After the initial media kerfuffle, President Obama claimed he was unaware the scope of the NSA’s tactics.

Unfortunately, Americans learned that the NSA eavesdropping program would be handled just like other scandals, all talk and no action. “We are not going to comment publicly on every specified alleged intelligence activity, and as a matter of policy, we have made clear that the United States gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said at a White House press briefing. Senator Feinstein responded to the same NSA revelations by simply saying, "It's called protecting America."

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham famously told the media he was glad cell phone companies willingly turned over data to the federal government in the same of national security. Nevertheless, Snowden’s continued document leaks barely make headlines, leaving many Americans scratching their heads and asking if anyone in DC really cares about the civil liberty infringements?

Closing statement

So far, the executive branch shows no signs of curbing the intelligence community’s breadth and scope of spying on Americans invoking the national security line. NSA Director and General Keith Alexander recently said, “We would like to cast it aside, but if we do, it is our fear that there will be a gap and potential for another 9/11.”

Despite turning the world upside down last year, Snowden told South by Southwest Conference attendees that if he the opportunity to do it all over again, he would, “absolutely yes.”

While Senator Feinstein demands a personal apology from the CIA for spying on her committee, she has mentioned nothing of an apology to the millions of Californians she represents, nor other Americans victimized by government surveillance, and remain a steadfast believer in spying on the rest of America.

More stories: theKDreport.com

Link to story on San Diego 6 News: http://www.sandiego6.com/story/Kimberly_Dvorak-20130915

Past breaking news story: http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi-1

© Copyright 2014 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

 

 

Obama's Regime Change Train Stops in Ukraine

 

 Remember when President Obama called for the ouster of longtime U.S. supported dictator, Hosni Mubarak, and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly endorsed Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood party as the democratic government of Egypt with a $3 billion check? A year later Mohamed Morsi, was thrown out of office and jailed by the military coup leadership that toppled him as they have done with the past governments of Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak (awaiting trial).

 

The President’s next stop targeted and demanded Yemen's leader Ali Abdullah Saleh step down as the U.S. increased its drone warfare against the Yemeni al Qaeda elements.

The next stop on the Obama regime change train was Libya. Shortly after Mr. Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace prize (link here), he addressed the nation with his argument for military action in Libya. He told the world President Muammar Kaddafi, Libya's long serving dictator, must go and America was obligated to prevent massive bloodshed in the North African oil-rich country. After an air campaign, Kaddafi was murdered and replaced by al Qaeda sympathizers, which repaid Americans with a terrorist attack in Benghazi (link here). Now Libya has fallen into chaos and al Qaeda wannabes control much of the country.

The fourth stop began with President Obama demanding President Bashir al Assad to step down and then he drew red lines in the sands of Syria, which promptly launched a bloody war, displaced millions, leaving at least 150,000 dead. Unfortunately for President Obama, American’s melted lawmakers phones in such large numbers Congress and the President had no other option but to stand down. Of course, that did not stop the Congress from passing legislation to enhanced humanitarian aid including heavy weapons for the al Qaeda backed insurgents.

The fifth stop on the regime change express is Ukraine. The abdication of President Viktor Yanukovych, the seizure of Crimea by the Russians, and the collapse of the Ukraine debt-saddled economy suggest it will follow Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Syria into sectarian violence and chaos.

But right on cue, the U.S. Congress easily approved a $1 billion loan guarantee package to support regime change in Ukraine. Is this just America attempting to buy love or will it turn out to be another down payment on hate?

What sets Ukraine apart from the other blunders in the Ukrainian situation surround Russia and the geopolitical factors involving private sector investments. Billions of U.S. dollars are intertwined in Russia; According to Ernst & Young, the auto industry alone is worth $75 billion per year with large investments from Ford and VW.

Nevertheless the largest card in Putin’s hand though is energy. Oil firms like BP, Exxon, and Royal Dutch Shell ensure energy flows freely regionally and almost guarantees any sanctions leveled on Russia will be superficial. It’s also important to point out that the Ukraine owes Russian oil giant Gazprom $1.89 billion, is it safe to assume any aid package sent to Ukraine will essentially go to Russia?

There is no disputing the fact that Europe is dependent on Russia for 25 percent of its Energy. Putin knows this and can use natural gas as a political weapon if the West moves forward with severe sanctions. In the case of Belarus, Bulgaria and the Baltic states, Russia provides nearly all the natural gas requirements, 90-100 percent. Russia’s iron-fist leader has already threatened retaliatory sanctions against the West and for those stepping outside the lines, Russia could either raise energy prices or cut off supplies altogether, crippling dependent global economies.

Russia’s extensive pipelines carry gas out of the country through a few different regions. The Yamal pipeline moves natural gas to German and Poland through Belarus. It carries gas south to Turkey using the Blue Stream pipeline. However the newly completely Nord Stream line skips Baltic countries and directly delivers natural gas to Germany.

In an effort to increase its energy muscle, Russia has already begun to plan the next massive South Stream pipeline. This will further Putin’s plan to exert its pressure as the world’s leading energy supplier. The new line would deliver gas across the Black Sea and into Austria, Hungry, Serbia and Bulgaria with additional lines to Italy. Experts concur this move would further exacerbate Ukraine’s relevance in the region.

Watch the San Diego 6 News segment here on Ukraine crisis

Who’s backing whom?

The U.S. government gleefully jumped into the middle of the Ukrainian protests by supporting the violent protestors' cries to dethrone a democratically "elected" president. Unanswered questions abound, who exactly runs Ukraine and what are America’s interests? Many leaders are Russian oligarchs, brutal Russian thugs, and Neo-Nazis. So why should America care about a Ukrainian civil war and the peninsula of Crimea?

These questions sparked a response from Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, a Canadian economist and professor at the University of Montreal; “15 years ago, the U.S. was fighting for the right of self-determination of Croatia and Slovenia in Yugoslavia. Now, Obama says the U.S. does not recognize the rights’ of Crimeans to self-determination that is fully a right under the U.N. Charter (article 1, par. 2). What's going on? Are these guys’ nuts or what?

Ukraine, as you know, is a unitary centralized state even though there are two distinct linguistic groups in two separate parts of the country. Surveys indicate that about 45 percent of the population speaks Ukrainian, 45 percent speak Russian, and 10 percent are bilingual. (NB: The official census indicates 25 percent of Russian speakers, but they are considered to have been rigged by the central government).”

The professor questioned what American’s would receive for their billion-dollar investment in the coup d'etat in Ukraine? “It got what the Obama administration wanted, i.e. the overthrow of the elected government, 12 months before the scheduled general elections. Some defense of democracy.”

Tremblay goes on to suggest that the West has clearly overreached in Ukraine and the policy of isolating and encircling Russia, which provoked a coup, ended up threatening Russia's national security. That scenario put Russian President Vladimir Putin in a good position to call the West’s bluff and “see if they are going to risk going to war for Ukraine with all the huge negative economic and financial consequences.”

Financial ties abound, Foreign interests inside Russia

Leaders from many top U.S. companies met last week with senior White House advisors, reminding the Obama administration that billions of private dollars are invested in Russia with the approval of the Kremlin. Corporate CEOs are rightfully concerned that Putin will follow through with his retaliation threat against America.

Large businesses like GE released statements saying they were “monitoring the situation closely.” While others like Pepsi suggested the Ukrainian crisis would negatively affect U.S. $11 billion in annual exports and $14 billion in direct investments. “If we are unable to expand our businesses in emerging market and development markets… as a result of our investments, particularly in Russia, as a result of economic and political conditions…our performance could be adversely affected,” Pepsi told the Washington Post.

Further, the National Foreign Trade Council suggested America stands to be hurt in a couple of ways if the stand off moves ahead. “What we’ve been hearing from our members is a lot of concern that there are two ways America gets hurt in a game like this. One is by American sanctions, that put them out of business, and the other is by Russian retaliation, regardless of what we do,” William Reinsch, President of the National Foreign Trade Council told the Washington Post. He continued to say that his organization has not been shy about the ramifications of U.S. sanctions.

Other consequences facing nations doing business in Russia concern loans. For example, collectively, the EU has nearly $200 billion in loans and investments at stake and it’s highly unlikely that they would walk away from that kind of money.

Couple that with the EU’s reliance on Russian energy, and there’s a recipe for devastating their already fragile economies.

Illustrating the mass affects the EU could face if Russia follows through with retaliation, Dr. Tremblay acknowledged with time the EU could recover. “We forecast that Russia's use of energy to extract political concessions will weaken over time, but will nevertheless remain formidable in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. While energy has served as an effective tool for Russia to wield political influence in Europe, Moscow is first and foremost concerned about maintaining the revenue from energy exports that has become so crucial for Russia's own budget and economic stability. In this sense, maintaining European market share (and further developing market share in Asia) takes precedence over political manipulation for Moscow.”

Conclusion

After five years in office, President Obama’s modus operandi dictates that he will stand with the UN and EU against any Russian military action in Ukraine. Based on the President's results in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Syria, Putin must be overjoyed.

But, of course, the President must have forgotten the Russians and restored pal, China, are permanent members of the UN Security Council and have veto power, which means the UN is useless to even try to intervene. Likewise, as demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs, the EU is linked to Russia and Ukraine is not worth the risk of billions of investment and energy supplies.

This type of political muscle is nothing new, the UN has supported secession movements in Timor, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Montenegro, just to name a few. What makes Crimea different?

Perhaps, the U.S. needs look no further than Tunisia, the country that “was too small to care,” yet managed to give birth to the Arab Spring and settle on secular doctrine that doesn’t include an Islamic government (link here)

Late Breaking News:

It’s now being reported by (AFP) – “Ukraine will not intervene militarily in the separatist peninsula of Crimea, in order to avoid exposing its eastern border, Ukraine's acting president told AFP Tuesday in an exclusive interview. In his comments, Oleksandr Turchynov, who came to power last month after violent protests brought down the previous pro-Moscow government, also slammed an upcoming referendum on Crimea as a "sham", the results of which will be fixed in Moscow.

"We cannot launch a military operation in Crimea, as we would expose the eastern border (close to Russia) and Ukraine would not be protected," Turchynov said as Crimea -- a southeastern peninsula that has come under the de facto control of Russian forces -- prepares to vote in a referendum Sunday on joining Russia. "What they call the referendum will not happen in Crimea but in the offices of the Kremlin," the president said, hours after the pro-Russian authorities in the Black Sea peninsula voted for full independence from Ukraine, further escalating what has already turned into the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War.

"It's a sham, most of the people of Crimea will boycott this provocation," he added. "The Russian forces don't intend to hold a referendum, they're just going to falsify the results."

Watch the San Diego 6 News segment here

Previous Ukraine story: http://www.examiner.com/article/ukraine-tensions-threaten-reincarnation-of-a-chinese-russian-alliance?no_cache=1394228297

Previous China story: http://www.examiner.com/article/we-re-fighting-to-protect-china-s-economic-interests-afghanistan

Previous drone stories: http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obomber-s-drone-strikes-kill-thousands-pakistan-1?no_cache=1390842918

For more stories: http://theKDreport.com

Benghazi stories: http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi?no_cache=1389982762

http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-revealed-stevens-was-the-target-terror-tuesday-was-the-cause-2

http://www.examiner.com/article/it-does-make-a-difference-hillary-benghazi-revisited-politics-as-usual-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/20-000-shoulder-to-air-missiles-missing-libya-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/9-11-war-on-terror-has-come-with-a-hefty-price

© Copyright 2014 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

 

 

Ukraine Tensions Threaten Reincarnation of a Chinese-Russian Alliance

 

March 6, 2014--An unintended or at least unexpected consequence of the East-West tug-of-war over Ukraine was the Sino announcement of unbridled support for its old cold war partner’s intervention in Ukraine.

A new Sino-Russo alliance could spell big trouble for the West and undo nearly half a century of cooperation, albeit contentious at times, between the world’s two super powers, at the expense of the Russian bear. The diplomatic coup pulled off by President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that paved the way for the economic powerhouse that is China today, was a dual edged, true Machiavellian move that created a schism between the old Soviets and Mao’s China, and opened China’s markets to the West.

As always, taking a look at history lessens the fog of propaganda (State Department 10 points). Just released archival documents illustrate the secret Nixon initiatives in 1969 that lead to improved Sino-American relations. Nixon was committed to the idea that Sino-Soviet tensions could open the door for Sino rapprochement with the West. Nixon and Kissinger opened surreptitious communications with China using Pakistan and Romania as cover. The diplomatic relationship lasted through the G W Bush administration, and American’s can only wait to see how a reignited powerhouse of China and Russia will fair with the U.S. in the crosshairs.

News of the new Sino-Russo alliance came after the West, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and Japan condemned Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. The G-7 released a statement lamenting Russia’s perceived aggression claiming “Russia’s (action was a) clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” (Story link here)

The Ukraine situation reads like one of Shakespeare’s tragedies. The European Union with nudging from the U.S. brought the eastern nation to the European Union’s altar, something that would have been a real feather in Europe’s cap and a poke in the eye to Vladimir Putin, but in this unromantic tragedy, the Ukraine left the EU at the altar and returned to her old boyfriend, Russia.

All’s fair in love and war

The Ukraine demonstrations are a win/win for Putin. The KGB spymaster schooled a naïve Obama administration. Foolishly, the first foreign policy action Obama and newly minted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commenced in 2009 was giving the Russians a red reset button. Second, Obama gave up the Polish missile defense system in another sign of “good faith” between to sparing nations. What did America get? Zero.

As President Obama’s final election campaign drew to a close, an open mic caught Obama telling outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" once he was reelected to discuss missile defense concessions. The President has never explained his flexibility statement! Is Ukraine an example of how Putin repays a “flexible” U.S. president?

Something that China and Russia do grasp is the dire financial situation America faces after 12 years of war in the Middle East and beyond. The drone war has also taken a toll on world relationships (story here) and an emboldened Putin knows America cannot move troops into eastern Ukraine and challenge a fresh Soviet military. Similarly, China has been flexing its military muscle in the China Sea with the development of anti-satellite missiles and offensive weapons.

China, with Russia riding its coattails, has been carefully and patiently planning its reemergence as the world’s superpower. Unfortunately for America, while playing the world’s policeman has left the country fatigued and $17 trillion in debt – no capital improvements or economic growth for a decade. Meanwhile, China’s and Russia’s chess match has outmaneuvered America in the form of buying up natural resources and minerals, aligning with emerging African nations, and building the next Panama Canal in Nicaragua. The question American’s should be asking is who benefits from the Ukraine dust-up and if the U.S. gets involved what exactly is the end game.

The usual suspects

Pulling the strings behind the scenes in the Ukraine, 50 years after Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech, are the CIA/USAID/the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Department of State (Sound familiar? - think Benghazi, Libya). According to former Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich, there are 65 programs operating covertly behind the scenes to provoke the instability in Ukraine.

With the president of Ukraine hold-up in Russia, both ethnic Russians and Ukrainians are demonstrating (as this article went to press, the Crimea parliament voted to join Russia), while the Russians and the West are offering competing multi-billion dollar grants to bolster its economy. With Russian forces on the move west and accompanied by a limp Western admonition about intervention, it seems like - yes, the good old days of the cold war are back. The KGB and CIA must be elated - oh boy, espionage and dirty tricks conjure up 007 sleuthing.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a geopolitical analyst from Canada said, “Western powers have orchestrated a coup in Ukraine after Kiev refused to become an Eastern European colony. This coup took place because Ukraine refused to sign an agreement with the European Union that would essentially change it into an Eastern European colony.”

He alleged a deal signed between Ukraine’s opposition and ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych, before his ouster saying, “The EU-brokered agreement, was made just to give legal cover to the coup. The strategy was this, you had members of the opposition talking with the Ukrainian government while another faction was pushing for violence in the streets and continued to work to oust the government.”

He continued to say, “the European Union and the US were actively interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs to change the government in Kiev to target Moscow and to get the Russians. I mean you had Victoria Nuland from the [US] State Department; you had the EU Commissioner for foreign and security affairs, Catherine Ashton, you had [US Senator] John “regime change” McCain, you had various people from the European Union, all going there supporting the opposition forces, the protesters and the people who are behind the regime change there,” Nazemroaya finished.

Back in the real world, Ukraine is just a chess piece in Russia's first move to restore the Russian Empire that Putin foretold. Ukraine is untouchable by the West, and everybody knows it. The gas pipelines of Russia run through Ukraine to the West, ethnic Russians live in Ukraine, Ukraine is and always will be within the Russian hegemonic sphere because it represents access to the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Plus, Crimea was given to Ukraine via administration means in 1954 by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. Further, according to Bloomberg News, “People who identified themselves as ethnic Russian comprise 59 percent of Crimea’s population.

With NATO reduced to a mere shadow of itself, the Russian military march into Crimea is only the beginning and they will likely continue to seize, occupy, and annex all of Ukraine if they choose to do so.

The real plot

While the media covers what is going on with the right hand, a Russian invasion into Crimea and Ukraine, they should be alerting Americans to the real concern - the reincarnation of the Sino-Russo alliance.

The good old days of Khrushchev and Mao - Nixon and Kissinger are back in style, just like the Madmen TV series. But this time the table is slanted in favor of the bad guys. The Chinese own America, literally. They could call their U.S. Treasuries and take a trillion dollar loss, but the result would be the total destruction of the U.S. and Western economies. Plus, Russia supplies Western Europe with cheap gas, electricity, precious resources and minerals.

The rekindled relationship may also revive a Chinese dream of replacing the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency with the Yuan (aka renminbi). They have been leading the pack in trying to wrest the reserve currency of the world from the U.S. The impact of the American dollar not being the world's reserve currency would devastate the U.S. economy.

But how could China accomplish the bold move to gain favored reserve currency status? Gold. Both China and India, the two largest BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China are the four largest emerging nations) have been buying and hoarding large sums of gold. China, by some accounts, is threatening to tie its currency to gold, something that could kill the U.S. dollar’s bargaining chip.

Conclusion

The unpredictability of violent demonstrations and foreign invasions never bodes well for stability, and the Ukraine and Crimea are no exception. So perhaps, the best judge is the man who helped broker the original Sino-Russo split, Mr. Kissinger.

“Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709, were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia… The Ukrainians are the decisive element.

They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939, when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian, became part of Ukraine only in 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or breakup. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system,” Kissinger wrote in a Washington Post story today.

Previous China story: http://www.examiner.com/article/we-re-fighting-to-protect-china-s-economic-interests-afghanistan

Previous drone stories: http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obomber-s-drone-strikes-kill-thousands-pakistan-1?no_cache=1390842918

 

Drone App Tracks US Missile Strikes Worldwide

 

After two years and multiple attempts, Apple finally approved “Metadata+” an app that provides real-time drone strike information to smart phones.

The architect, Josh Begley, thought the concept of providing real-time drone strike data would elevate the controversial CIA program for smart phone users. Begley said the basic idea was to get App Store users more interested in the America’s secretive drone wars by sending smart phones alerts similar to Instagram® or Twitter®.

Watch San Diego 6 News segment here

The brief messages say something like: “al-Aulaqi, a 16-year-old US citizen, was eating dinner with his teenage cousins in Yemen when a hellfire missile blew up the entire restaurant.”

Also, the latest two strikes reported from Metadata+ yesterday, March 3, “In the province of Shabwa (Yemen), a U.S. drone fired missiles at a car, killing two people. And the second drone strike of the day killed 1 person in Abyan (Yemen). And today, “three people were killed while driving through al Jawf. It was the fourth reported drone strike of the week.”

However, the new app is not welcome news to establishment politicians and intelligence agencies. Todd Ebitz, the media spokesperson for the CIA told San Diego 6 News “We appreciate your reaching out, but on the matter you asked (Metadata+ application) please put us down for a decline to comment.”

While the CIA may decline to comment, California Democrat Senator and Chair of the coveted Intel Committee Diane Feinstein told CNN the drone program is extremely useful. “I think the drone is new technology and in some respects the perfect assassination weapon. It can see from 17,000 to 20,000 feet in the air, it’s very precise, it can knock out a room in a building if it’s armed, and it’s a very dangerous weapon.”

It is not only the Metadata+ app that is unpopular, it seems the President's Target Killing List is also taking some counter-fire. In December of last year, President Obama took some heat when Yemen's parliament called for the United States to end its drone strikes on its sovereign territory after a Hellfire missile attack mistakenly struck a wedding convoy, killing at least a dozen wedding party participants and injuring another 18 people.

The Yemen Parliament voted on the measure, almost unanimously, to put an end to the devastating drone attacks that some say creates more terrorists than it kills. The non-binding vote was the latest warning for America and Yemeni President Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi, according to a CNN report.

Yesterday, President Obama further complicated things when he commented on Russia's not respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty.

“A principle that a sovereign people, an independent people, are able to make their own decisions about their own lives,” Obama explained. “Mr. Putin can throw a lot of words out there, (but) the facts on the ground indicate he is not abiding by that principle. There is a strong belief that Russia’s action is violating international law. President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations. I don’t think that’s fooling anybody.”

Perhaps Mr. Obama is consulting Mr. Putin’s lawyers after all.

Previous drone stories: http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-drone-war-hits-its-fifth-year

Comrade Secret Service Confronts “Conrad the Constitution”

The government’s “War on National Security Journalists” increasingly seems to be more than a political slogan and more like an aggressively asserted campaign. Employing Soviet era tactics of surveillance, censorship, and outright oppression, the First Amendment is under attack from a hostile U.S. government that tolerates no opposition.

The latest crack down on free speech in America reached epic proportions, when the creators of “Conrad the Constitution,” Tim and Jay Fox, were strong-armed by the Secret Service for creating a “South Park” like animated series on YouTube. The Season two episode eight season finale that prompted the Secret Service to visit their home as well as their parent’s home is entitled “After a series of unfortunate events, Conrad and Baldy (the eagle) must assassinate Obama to save America.” While the series illustrates the Fox Brothers dark humor, Tim Fox explained the episode was hatched to spark discussion about the shredding of America’s Constitution.

“I guess you could say we knew the episode would provoke discussion,” Fox said sipping his Iced Tea at a local coffee house. What the brothers didn’t expect was a visit from the Secret Service last weekend. “When my dad called and told me the Secret Service wanted to talk to me I thought he was joking.” He wasn’t and Fox would wait hours for the Secret Service to show up at his Los Angeles Valley apartment.

So far the Fox brothers have not been asked to take down the episode in question, but that could be in the works. The strange reaction this reporter received from the Secret Service for placing a follow up call to confirm the story speaks volumes … the Secret Service person who took the call refused to identify himself and cross-examined this reporter. So far the Secret Service has yet to respond, stay tuned…

Of course neither Fox brother endorses violence against President Obama, they simply wanted to mobilize younger Americans into the Constitutional discussion.

Watch the San Diego 6 News TV report here

Publicized by the Stratfor email leaked by Wikileaks - “(John) Brennen (now CIA Director) is behind the hunts of investigative journalists learning information from inside beltway sources” (now 404ed) – and fueled by the rash of attacks on investigative journalists over the last year, including the deaths of Michael Hastings (of Stanley McChrystal fame) via a suspicious car accident, Internet prodigy and Reddit cofounder Aaron Swartz (suicide by hanging after suffering federal prosecution) as well as many documented Department of Justice targets at the Associated Press, New York Times, Fox News, including a litany of smaller, lesser know writers, including Barrett Brown.

In Brown’s case, the journalist is accused of close relations with the notorious hacking organization Anonymous, and was promptly jailed in Texas for his alleged misdeeds. The current war on journalists delivers a powerful prison punch; Brown faces a century behind bars for expressing his First Amendment right to expose an overly aggressive U.S. federal régime. For this the journalist was slapped with a gag order against prior restraint for allegedly planning a massive social media campaign, unfortunately the “government” shut them down.

Government overreach proof came last year when National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden released a torrent of supporting documents that Americans were the targets of a massive surveillance state. And nine months later, the drip, drip of new spying tactics trickles into American and worldwide publications.

The police state gains momentum

A recent Guardian story aptly described just how much Senator Feinstein agreed with the massive brave new surveillance state in America. “The FISA Improvements Act, promoted by Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, would both make permanent a loophole permitting the NSA to search for Americans’ identifying information without a warrant – and, civil libertarians fear, contains an ambiguity that might allow the FBI, the DEA and other law enforcement agencies to do the same thing.”

A surveillance lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, Michelle Richardson, also told the Guardian, “For the first time, the statute would explicitly allow the government to proactively search through the NSA data troves of information without a warrant.”

Does this sound like America?

But Democrats needn’t worry about being called civil liberty takers, no; it’s really a bipartisan need to protect power among the political elite. Take GOP Rep. Mike Rogers for example, his Iron fist intelligence collection approach calls journalists in sync with Mr. Snowden criminals.

However, politicos are not content to jail Edward Snowden, Chelsea/Bradley Manning or Barrett Brown, they want the organizations that highlight a governments’ misuse of power like WikiLeaks, Project PM and now the millions of NSA documents to be permanently silenced.

The silence even extends to detainees/terrorists residing at the infamous “Gitmo.” The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of detainees/terrorists who were subjected to rendition tactics by U.S agencies at America’s infamous “black sites” courtesy of the compliant allies.

Defense attorneys for the five detainees accused of the 9/11 attacks argued information obtained from torture administered at CIA black sites is inadmissible in court and therefore the government’s case is not valid. “It’s a way in which the government can hide what it did to these men during the period of detention by the CIA,” Army Capt. Jason Wright, a military appointed attorney for KSM said. “I think we need to bring the truth to the light of day on these issues.” (Link to story here)

However, Brigadier General, Mark Martins, U.S. Army, chief prosecutor at Gitmo said it was up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the government wasn’t in the business of “trials by ambush.” He finished by saying that the government’s work is worthy and justice isn’t a popularity contest.

What about Posse Comitatus?

Presidential power grabs are nothing new, but one law that protects American citizens from those abuses has been around for a while. Lately, many on the right, are screaming about Executive Power abuse by President Obama, but it wasn’t so long ago that Republican President G.W. Bush was tampering with laws on the U.S. books.

During the Katrina crisis, President Bush pressed Congress to review and rewrite a Civil War era federal law that strictly prohibits the U.S. military from conducting law enforcement inside the country. At least Mr. Bush acknowledged the tactics would “require a change in law.” That law is the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal statute that constrains the federal government from using the military as a police force on U.S. soil. The act exposes America’s longstanding distrust of using U.S. armies at home. There is, however, a National Guard that is dispatched to respond to national emergencies, but they do not create an appearance of domestic militarization.

Looking at today’s headlines, it appears the U.S. is completely ignoring Posse Comitatus.

Last week England’s surveillance agency GCHQ was caught working with the National Security Agency (NSA), a Department of Defense organization, in an effort to intercept and electronically keep 1.8 million images taken from Internet consumers who were not suspected of a crime. The users are simply victims of another massive government data collection program operated by the Brits with the ever-so-helpful U.S. NSA.

“GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not,” another Guardian story reveals. “In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.”

The news set off a firestorm from Yahoo management. They claimed to have no knowledge of the joint operation and suggested this latest violation reaches new lows by a government hungry for data.

Conclusion

Is it coincidence or a tip off that positioned a Live Leaks videographer that captured the first scenes of the explosive Michael Hastings accident and that same organization captured the first videos of Russian helicopters invading Ukraine? Or, perhaps, the Stratfor memo that showed-up on the WikiLeaks site (now 404ed) suggests the war on journalists is well underway. (Story link here)

From the big picture, it appears the government’s “War on National Security Journalists” is gaining momentum despite a few recent court decisions seeking to curb secret government tactics (link here). The real concern of the Fox brothers and many Americans is whether the few recent court victories will be sufficient to stem the tide of Democrat Senator Feinstein’s plans for the expansion of draconian police state tactics that minimize individual freedoms in favor of the collective. Sounds like Conrad the Constitution’s third season is ready to be written …

More stories: theKDreport.com

Email Kimberly: kimberly.dvorak1999@gmail.com

For more Libya stories:

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi?no_cache=1389982762

 

With the Second Amendment in its sights, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court granted law-abiding residents in the Wild West state of California with an emphatic victory for individual liberties by striking unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

To watch the San Diego 6 News TV segment: http://www.sandiego6.com/story/drone-app-ca-gun-rights-20140216

The 127-page opinion, supported by an exhaustive study of the history and application of the Second Amendment, confirmed the rights of individuals to conceal carry weapons outside the home. The opinion, if it stands, guaranteed individual rights over the intrusion of the government. Some legal experts claim the case could potentially be referenced in numerous civil liberty rights’ cases having nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Most folks didn’t give the Peruta vs. Gore case much hope in the Ninth Circuit, defenders, including lead plaintiff Edward Peruta, thought the case would take years and end up in the Supreme Court—both were wrong and the people of California can add their names to landmark gun rights’ cases like Heller and McDonald.

The crux of the Peruta case centered on the “shall issue” versus the “may issue” of Conceal Carry Weapon (CCW) permits that gave discretion to the state’s 58 County Sheriffs. Peruta argued he had been wrongfully declined a CCW permit, even though he has licenses to carry a concealed firearm in three other states. As such Peruta cleared background checks, presented letters of recommendations and provided all information required to obtain a CCW license.

The lawsuit against San Diego County was filed in October of 2009 after the Sheriff William Gore’s office repeatedly road-blocked Peruta’s CCW application. Peruta said the Sheriff's Department left him no other recourse.

James Chapin, the sole attorney presenting the county’s case at Peruta’s initial hearing told the district court that neither Supreme Court decisions in McDonald or Heller rulings provided a right to carry a firearm outside the home and went on to say that the decisions stated that the right to own a firearm is not unlimited.

He argued that this case could make it far too easy for unsavory elements to obtain CCW’s and use that right to commit more crime. “Good cause has to mean something,” Chapin said.

The Ninth Circuit Court disagreed.

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantee that we have help to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause,” according to the Ninth Circuit judges rule in the McDonald case.

The Ninth Circuit went on to say, “The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s ‘good cause’ permitting impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a lawful self-defense. The case is reversed and remanded.”

After the ruling was announced the San Diego Sheriff’s Dept. said the Ninth Circuit defined the issue on appeal as “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit took an exhaustive look at the history of jurisprudence surrounding the Second Amendment, and more specifically what it means to ‘bear arms.’ It is clear, given the 2-1 split in this opinion, as well as the split among Federal Circuits across the Country, that there is no easy answer on which everyone will agree.”

During a 2009 interview with this reporter Peruta said, “Honesty, fairness and full disclosure during the CCW application process could save the county a great deal of time and yet to be determined tax dollars.”

Today, Mr. Peruta has a large grin on his face and explains why his victory is sweet. “The Ninth Circuit ruling confirms Sheriff Gore disrespected every honest, law abiding resident in San Diego County. The CCW application process was nothing more than a scheme and quid pro quo for supporters with deep pockets while non-supporters were left empty handed. I didn’t file this lawsuit for myself, but for my family and I simply couldn’t wait to provide that security, nor did I feel other families should have to wait when it comes to self defense.”

Furthermore Peruta said, the assumption by the county that they are simply limiting the lethality of violent crimes is absurd, “do they really think a legal firearm owner will head down and rob 7-11 after he/she passes through a costly and lengthy background check to secure their safety?”

Nevertheless San Diegians must sit tight for the 90-day grace period. There are a few scenarios that could send the case back to the courts. First, the court itself could vote to have the full 11-judge panel review the decision. Second the State Attorney General, Kamala Harris, hasn’t finished her review and will likely discuss the case with the Department of Justice’s office in DC.

However, pressuring the courts to review Peruta vs. Gore could have consequences, especially if the Supreme Court hears the case and rules ALL “may issue” laws in ALL states as unconstitutional.

Nontheless, there are a few things in the Peruta case left to settle, including the hefty legal bills. Sean Brady, attorney in the Peruta case, said it is likely that county taxpayers could be on the hook for at least $500,000.
While the 90-day delay may seem like another stalling tactic, last week the Sheriff’s Department in Orange County alerted residents it would follow the new CCW guidelines.

Last week San Diego's northern neighbor, Orange County Sheriff loosened requirements for residents obtaining a concealed-weapons permit in light of the recent federal appellate court Peruta decision that said many counties in California were overly restrictive in their CCW license process.

Local applicants will no longer be subject to extraordinary high standards to prove they need to protect themselves or their family. Previously, candidates were required to prove “good cause,” something that limited concealed firearms in Orange County to people who carried large sums of money, valuables, and/or who could prove an existing death threat.

“Bottom line is the sheriff is going to abide by the law,” said Lt. Jeff Hallock, a spokesman for O.C. Sheriff Sandra Hutchens.

Past firearm Supreme Court cases

For those who didn’t think gun rights enthusiasts were going to win in liberal California, two recent landmark gun cases proved otherwise. First the Heller case (decided by the Supreme Court in 2008) gave residents in a federal enclave the right to “keep and bear arms;” and the McDonald case (decided by the Supreme Court in June of last year) extended the Second Amendment to the states to ensured that citizens were allowed to “keep and bear arms” without the individual states placing burdensome restrictions on the Second Amendment provision to own a firearm.

The heart of the McDonald case centered around a citizens’ right to own a firearm even when their life is not faced with an imminent threat, but to have the ability to protect themselves if or when a threat occurs.
The judges in the McDonald/Heller cases ruled out the Sheriff’s burdensome “good cause” disclaimer where they proclaimed it is a fundamental human right for citizens to have means for immediate self-defense in the event of a confrontation.

The plaintiffs in the Peruta case contended that the Sheriff’s Department found favor with prominent wealthy elite residents as well as those who belong to the Honorary Deputy Sheriff’s Association, an organization that funds many praiseworthy projects and equipment purchases for the Sheriff Department which may not otherwise be available due to current budget constraints.

“Every resident, taxpayer and voter of San Diego County should be outraged that the Sheriff offers the right to bear arms for “SELF DEFENSE” to the prominent, wealthy and/or well connected while refusing the same right to the average everyday hard-working law abiding residents of San Diego County,” Peruta said.

While the county contends it grants the majority of the CCW applications it receives, what it didn’t tell the court is the Sheriff’s office initially and informally tells possible applicants, after a few minutes of office review, that they don’t qualify and if they continue forward they will lose any application funds paid and have a negative record on their Department of Justice file.

“The evidence obtained in the Federal Lawsuit clearly shows the San Diego County Sheriff’s Dept. has an established policy of separating its residents into two distinct groups, those that can and those that cannot carry firearms for self defense,” Peruta explained.

While it may be true that law enforcement responds to calls for assistance, most cops on the beat openly say they cannot always respond in time to prevent crimes from occurring. In the real world it is a hard argument to win. It’s like asking a criminal to wait a few minutes for law enforcement to arrive before they commit their crime or inflict their intended harm on the unarmed victim. Peruta said it just doesn’t work like that in the real world.

During the closing arguments of the Peruta case, Los Angeles County Attorney Chuck Michel further explained “the right of self defense doesn’t end at the threshold of your home.”

Michel left the court with two important facts. “There are currently 37/38 states that are currently “shall issue” states.” He also explained that states’ with fewer firearm restrictions saw reductions in violent crime rates. “Significant declines, because nobody wants to go duck hunting when five percent of the ducks can shoot back.”

San Diego Sheriff Gore Yields to Second Amendment and Gun Rights

The 127-page ruling kicked the case back to the District Court in San Diego where San Diego County Counsel, James Chapin decided not to appeal and Sheriff Gore told the County Board of Supervisors that he had no intention of seeking en banc (full court) review in the Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego.

"On Thursday February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego, et.al concluding that the State of California's requirement of "good cause," in cases where an applicant petitions for a Conceal Carry Weapon permit for personal protection, impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit defined the issue on appeal as "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." In so doing, the Ninth Circuit took an exhaustive look at the Anglo-American history of jurisprudence surrounding the Second Amendment, and more specifically what it means to "bear arms." It is clear, given the 2-1 split in this opinion, as well as the split among Federal Circuits across the Country, that there is no easy answer on which everyone will agree.

The decision by the Ninth Circuit found that the Second Amendment requires states to permit some form of firearm carry for self-defense outside the home. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit went on to emphasize that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession '—or carriage—' of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

In a passive concurrence of the Peruta decision, San Diego Sheriff William Gore stated, "Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature's responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary's responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality. Law enforcement's role is to uphold and enforce the law.

The legislature certainly has the power to amend California's firearm carry process, and the Ninth Circuit has the ability to bring its own motion to rehear the decision of the three-member panel en banc. However, while the court's decision clearly involves a question of exceptional importance, and conflicts with decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals, the opinion provides clear guidance in the context of issuing CCWs in California.

Therefore, I see no need for me to petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc in order to be able to carry out my duties as Sheriff of San Diego County. As a result, I have advised the Office of County Counsel that I will not seek such a hearing.

Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff's Department will begin to issue CCW's in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense."

The backstory: The second amendment takes aim at Sheriff Gore

There are many reasons applicants can be denied the right to carry a hand gun, including prior brushes with the law, inconsistent legal records or lack of need, however in San Diego it appears subjective determinations by the Sheriff control - if they just don’t like you your conceal carry permit application it is stamped – DENIED.

It’s true California is a gun restrictive state and as such keeps a close eye on the state’s gun owners, however, San Diego takes exception to what constitutes residency in order to prevent gun owners from legally carrying their weapon. As a result, Edward Peruta filed a lawsuit against San Diego County and Sheriff William Gore – leveling some precedent-setting charges.

Peruta, a Connecticut native, owns homes in several states (including California), calls himself a liberal Democrat, is a firm believer in the Second Amendment, and finds it odd that he is having so many troubles in San Diego.

“I guess you could say my wife sums it up best, California seems to follow the ‘rules de jour,’” Peruta said.
His San Diego saga began when he and his wife decided to take their home on the road, a motor home that is. When the Peruta’s made the decision to travel across the country law enforcement officers encouraged him to carry a firearm for protection.

“It seemed plausible enough, we were traveling in a vehicle with only one exit, carrying quite a bit of cash and would pass through areas where cell phone coverage would be spotty,” Peruta explained. “So I naturally looked into what the process was for states around the country and put together a piecemeal gun owner application process in the states I owned homes. I wanted to make sure I was covered wherever I traveled.”

His logic garnered him three conceal carry permits in the states of Connecticut, Florida and Utah. In each state he went through the application process that included references and background checks. The smooth sailing for Peruta in other states would not meet with the same result in San Diego.

“I knew there was going to be trouble when I turned in my application at the San Diego Sheriff’s office and they denied me before they even took my application! I was stunned by their lack of candor,” Peruta explains.

According to the San Diego Sheriff’s records, it received Peruta’s application and he was interviewed by Donna Burns, a licensed supervisor on November 17, 2008. During the initial phase of the CCW application process Burns advised him he did not meet the criteria for a CCW license and was denied the ability to turn in an application.

“I wasn’t happy about the decision and returned in December to talk to Blanca Pelowitz, a manager, who concurred with her staff that I did not qualify to even hand in my application for processing,” he said.

At this point his journalistic instincs kicked-in and he insisted the Sheriff’s Department take his application, his references and required fees.

In paperwork obtained from Peruta, the San Diego Sheriff ‘s office had this to say. “Despite the fact Peruta was told he did not meet the criteria for a CCW license Peruta insisted this office accept his application. Peruta was advised that no monies would be refunded once his application was accepted.”

Houston we have a problem, collecting 100 percent of the fees and not refunding money is a violation of California Penal Code.

This is where the San Diego Sheriff Department ‘s process begins to unravel. The psychic abilities of the San Diego Sheriff’s office are amazing. Apparently it can predict which CCW applications will be approved and those that won’t without reading and checking completed CCW applications.

However, one of the main sticking points for San Diego Sheriff employees is the fact Peruta lives in his motor home at Campland on the Bay in San Diego, from November 15 to April 15 each year. The department balks at Peruta’s residence even though he has presented paperwork for the last two years, fulfilling the residency requirement the Sheriff Department claims is mandatory for a successful application.

The lawsuit Peruta filed tackled the residency issue San Diego claims as the leading indicator for denial of his CCW permit. The process the SD Sheriff’s office says it followed did not include contacting the plaintiff’s eight character references, including three law enforcement officers, disregarding the three states that have already issued CCW permits to Peruta and reviewing the “good cause” aspects in connection with the CCW submitted application.

Wording contained in the Second Amendment lawsuit confirmed Peruta provided all the required information necessary for a successful application. Mr. Peruta also submitted a completed and certified National Rifle Association (NRA) Basic Pistol Safety Course, an eight-hour Firearms Safety Proficiency Certificate, Good Cause and Durational Residency in San Diego - yet he was still denied the CCW permit.

San Diego Sheriff candidate, Jay LaSuer, who is running against Gore in the upcoming election, has stated many times that he supports the CCW “shall issue” stance. “If a person can pass a background check and is a law abiding citizen they ‘shall’ receive a CCW license,” LaSuer explains. “When you have a Sheriff like Gore who doesn’t understand the law, how can you expect him to apply it?”

The County and Sheriff’s Department had requested that Peruta's case be dismissed, however the Ninth Circuit validated Peruta’s claims and he stated he is prepared to continue to fight , if necessary. “I’ve discussed this with my attorney and we will take it to the Supreme Court if we need to,” he candidly said.

Looking down the road Peruta remains confident. “I never thought of anything but winning, and often think of the people who don’t know how to litigate or don’t have the personal funds or funding sources to solve their problems. I wasn’t looking for a legal fight with San Diego but couldn’t walk away given the facts and circumstances. I have the facts, knowledge, finances and legal resources to address this issue.”

What outcome does Peruta want as a result of the lawsuit? He hopes the staff of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department becomes educated, by court order or agreement, if need be, in how to read and implement provisions of the California Penal Code and make decisions based on the exact wording contained in the state law. He says it’s important for public employees, regardless of their public agency, to listen, and treat individuals with the respect they deserve.

The continued disconnect between ‘real America’ and ‘bureaucratic America’ creates an unnecessary barrier for Joe taxpayer the result often ends with a lawsuit. “I would like public employees to stop adding or using words which are not contained in the law when making decisions,” Peruta explains.

Looking to change the way the San Diego Sheriff’s office does business is priority number one for Peruta, but the fact that many California residents don’t understand the law as it is written means they rely on public officials to be faithful to the law during the application process.

“I believe that if this case is not settled and finds its way for whatever reason to a higher court, it has the potential to impact the right to bear arms across the country for countless law abiding individuals. I’d like to believe that this case will clarify and correct the current pattern of abuse which exists in the State of California regarding CCW licenses,” Peruta says.

For those looking to apply for a CCW

Members of the public wishing to obtain a CCW under the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit should be aware that the decision has not yet become final. Federal court rules prescribe a period of time, which must elapse before the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff's Department will begin issuing CCWs in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense.

Additionally, those seeking a CCW are advised that the process for obtaining a CCW involves several steps. The application process includes a scheduled interview, payment of fees, as well as state and local background checks. Successful completion of a firearms course of training is also required. This process can take several months.

At a minimum, Peruta would like to be first among those in San Diego that can legally obtain and possess a government issued CCW permit after the Ninth Circuit ruling.

Email Kimberly: Kimberly.dvorak@hotmail.com

Tips? theKDreport.com

Link to story on San Diego 6 News: http://www.sandiego6.com/story/Kimberly_Dvorak-20130915

Past breaking news story: http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi-1

© Copyright 2014 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

 

Director of U.S. Intel, Clapper, says America is ripe for a terror attack

After 13 years of the war on terror, a key objective has remained elusive. This week Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper told the Senate Intel committee that America remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

“For attacks on the homeland I can’t say that the threat (of attack) is any less,” Clapper said at the committee hearing.

The news stunned members of Congress, especially after President Obama referred to al-Qaeda as the JV of terror groups and Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.

Director Clapper also told lawmakers that al-Qaeda groups have opened terror camps "to train people to go back to their countries," and conduct more terrorist acts in more than 50 countries around the world.

So what does this mean for fatigued warriors? Can enlisted service members expect multiple deployments? Will American’s see more Army Rangers like Cory Remsburg, who was a guest of the First Lady at the State of the Union who suffered life- changing injuries after his 10th deployment?

President Obama commended the Ranger’s commitment to the army and America.

“And like the Army he loves, like the America he serves, Sergeant First Class Cory Remsburg never gives up, and he does not quit,” Obama at the SOTU.

What the President failed to discuss was the ramifications of America’s longest war.

Watch Kimberly’s San Diego 6 News segment here.

More stories: theKDreport.com

For more Libya stories:

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi?no_cache=1389982762

http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-revealed-stevens-was-the-target-terror-tuesday-was-the-cause-2

http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-revealed-stevens-was-the-target-terror-tuesday-was-the-cause-2

 

Obama's drone war hits its fifth year

It was on President Obama’s third day in office that he approved his first drone strikes in Pakistan. The first one was successful and killed a high value target. The second didn’t go as well, it leveled a house filled with civilians. While the President expressed regret over the loss of life, he has grown accustomed to his targeted kill list that is associated with “Terror Tuesdays” in the White House.

After five years of aggressive CIA drone strikes the President can say he has old al-Qaeda on the run, something his top Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein agrees with. “I think the drone is new technology and in some respects the perfect assassination weapon. It can see from 17,000 to 20,000 feet in the air, it’s very precise, it can knock out a room in a building if it’s armed, and it’s a very dangerous weapon.”

Watch Kimberly Dvorak’s San Diego 6 News segment here.

According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a leading drone tracking center, the past five years has claimed more than 2,400 non-combatant lives and caused countless injuries.

On top of that, The New York Times reported, “Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, ‘When the drones hit, they don’t see children.’”

American terrorists are also on the TKL (Targeted Kill List). Obama approved the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, and another American citizen, who was not on the TKL but was traveling with Awlaki.

Moving forward the controversial drone program continues to suffer from mishaps. A December 12 strike in Yemen killed 12 and wounded 14 civilians on their way to a wedding, none of which were terrorists. The Yemen headlines of “U.S. turns a wedding into a funeral” created a major backlash and prompted the government to reassess America’s drone policy inside the turbulent Middle Eastern nation.
We’ve been droned… are kill lists lawful and prudent?

Eleven years, trillions of dollars, 6,527 dead U.S. warriors and the Middle East is still embroiled in an endless war. Americans and its warriors are tired and broke. With all the U.S. blood and treasure expended, one would think the folks in the Middle East would be grateful, thankful; America has dedicated precious resources to “give” the Middle East democracy and freedom. They’re not.

According to a new Pew Research Center poll, 74 percent of Pakistanis think America is the enemy, a sentiment that has increased the last few years from 69 and 64 percent respectively. This shocking poll reverberates throughout the Middle East region.

But why do countries hate America more now than under the Bush Administration? Drones, targeted killings and corruption have garnered ill will with tribal leaders as well as those attending wedding parties.

Leading world news organizations, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have estimated the U.S. drone program has killed more than 4,000 people including a large number of civilian women and children since Obama became president.

Not helping matters is the White House bragging about “Terror Tuesdays” and the delight President Obama takes when he orders the death of an alleged al Qaeda operative, even if it’s an American citizen. The Constitutional scholar and purveyor of “fairness” has become the sole dispenser of justice. No Miranda rights, no judge and no jury --the presumption of innocence has effectively been tossed in the wastebasket of yesteryear under the guise of national security.

“Something that is being debated in UN hallways and committee rooms cannot apparently be talked about in U.S. courtrooms, according to the government,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project. “Whether the CIA is involved in targeted lethal operation is now classified. It's an absurd fiction.”

Once transparent candidate Obama became president, tactics in the “war on terror” shifted. The New York Times described Obama as “the man who placed himself at the helm of a top secret ‘nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.”

Christof Heyns, a UN expert in targeted killings and arbitrary executions, said U.S. drone strikes are dangerously close to “war crimes,” something of which former President George W. Bush was accused and something that now hinders his foreign travel.

However, the rookie President not only accepted former-President Bush’s covert war tactics he enhanced them. “The secret ‘nominations’ process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia,” the New York Times reports.
This policy doesn’t bode well with Pakistan's ambassador to the UN, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal intervention to cease the U.S.’s “totally counterproductive attacks.”

Heyns addressed the UN conference and added: "(Countries) may find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in (the) future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it's recognized as being an armed conflict."

He further derided the use of unmanned vehicle attacks outside the war theater as unacceptable. “It's difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to (9/11 attacks) in 2001. Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.”

While the UN throws out phrases like “conspiracy of silence” and “shine the light on independent investigation,” only time will tell if other nation’s risk Mr. Obama’s scorn to end the practice of targeted-killings. So far, the president’s national security advisor, Thomas Donilon, says Obama is determined to move forward with a kill list and act as the executioner. “He’s a president who is quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States,” Donilon quipped.

Even American citizens are not safe from aggressive shadow war tactics. “The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step (of assassinating U.S. citizens), asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch,” the New York Times reported.

Nevertheless the President took it in stride and told his former chief of staff, William Daley, “This is an easy one.” This action eventually led many in DC to demand the legal opinion memo that Obama used to deny an American citizen justice, however, like former President Bush, he decided to keep his decision secret.

“This program rests on the personal legitimacy of the president, and that’s not sustainable,” said Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA. “I have lived the life of someone taking action on the basis of secret OLC memos, and it ain’t a good life. Democracies do not make war on the basis of legal memos locked in a DOJ safe.”

On the other hand the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) warned that “immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law” when it comes to innocuous drone attacks and corruption. Ian Seiderman, ICJ director said Americans were relying on surveillance video rather than actual intelligence to prompt drone attacks on suspected al Qaeda terrorists.

So far more than 1,000 people have been killed in Pakistan by drone attacks, the Pakistani ambassador concluded. “We find the use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the war against terror. It leads to greater levels of terror rather than reducing them.”

Where’s the outrage?

The outrage simmers in the European Union. American targeted killing or drone attacks presents an enormous challenge to rule of law philosophies that dominated U.S. policy for years.

After 9/11, the CIA, Special Ops personnel and defense contractors teamed up to fight a shadowy war, outside the lines, and outside the traditional warzones. Countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been the beneficiaries of targeted killing using undetected, high-tech, armed drones. An FYI to Americans, the U.S. Congress has not declared war with any of those countries.

As commander of the United States Central Command in September 2009, General David Petraeus signed a classified order authorizing “American Special Operations troops to collect intelligence in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other places outside of traditional war zones. The result is that American military and (civilian) intelligence operatives are at times virtually indistinguishable from each other as they carry out classified operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. Some members of Congress have complained that this new way of war allows for scant debate about the scope and scale of military operations. In fact, the American spy and military agencies operate in such secrecy now that it is often hard to come by specific information about the American role in major missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen,” according to a New York Times story.

During the President’s 2008 bid, Mr. Obama spoke openly about following the letter of the law and promised Americans he would end the wars. "I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today. We should not give the president a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path." It’s been more than three years and the Obama Administration has committed an undisclosed amount of American support and resources to corrupt Afghan leaders through 2024.

Is the wink-and-a-nod policy good for the American taxpayer or is it good for Afghan President Hamid Karzai whose legendary corruption has forwarded U.S. dollars into private accounts outside his tribal nation?

The droning business goes global

Notwithstanding the obvious --what’s preventing U.S.-made drones from ending up in enemy hands? Currently money drives the American defense contractors who continue to lobby the government for the right to export drones to foreign countries like China and Israel.

American companies point to the Congressional Research Service and claimed foreign entities are beating U.S. defense contractors to the punch.

"Export restrictions are hurting this industry in America without making us any safer," said Wesley Bush, Chief Executive of Northrop. "The U.S. is struggling to sell unmanned aircraft to our allies while other nations prepare to jump into the marketplace with both feet."

Democrat Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee told the LA Times he is working with the Obama Administration to ease exporting policies. "It's crazy for us to shut off sales in this area while other countries push ahead," Berman said. "A very significant part of this economic recovery depends on exports. We need to take advantage of where our strengths lie."

While opening up the “commercial” drone market may be “good” for business others worry the technology will do more harm than good.

"The proliferation of this technology will mark a major shift in the way wars are waged," said Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association. "We're talking about very sophisticated war machines here. We need to be very careful about who gets this technology. It could come back to hurt us."

Companies like General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. that builds the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper hunter-killer drones used by the military, are also looking to break into a growing UAV marketplace by building unarmed Predator drones.

All told the U.S. drone market will make an estimated $11 billion over the next decade.

Conclusion

Looking into the future, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that foreign countries will arm and use drones to benefit their ideologies based on their law and order. Imagine that a target from the Mexican president’s “kill list” was discovered at a wedding in San Diego…

Previous drone stories: http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obomber-s-drone-strikes-kill-thousands-pakistan-1?no_cache=1390842918

For more stories: http://theKDreport.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi?no_cache=1389982762

http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-revealed-stevens-was-the-target-terror-tuesday-was-the-cause-2

http://www.examiner.com/article/it-does-make-a-difference-hillary-benghazi-revisited-politics-as-usual-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/20-000-shoulder-to-air-missiles-missing-libya-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/9-11-war-on-terror-has-come-with-a-hefty-price

© Copyright 2014 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

 

 

The CIA to Provide New Details into Hastings' Death

Kimberly Dvorak

San Diego 6 and TheKDreport.com continue to receive numerous inquiries regarding the status of the investigation into the death of National Security reporter Michael Hastings. Hastings died in a single car accident in Los Angeles on June 18, 2013. Videos of the crash scene depict several explosions that resulted in a huge fireball. The 911 call transcripts obtained by San Diego 6 also confirmed multiple explosions.

Link to San Diego 6 TV

 The Los Angeles Police Department determined early in the investigation process that no foul play was suspected in Hastings’ single car accident, yet nearly four months later the LAPD refuses to release its investigative report.

Documents and emails obtained by SD6 from LA Supervising Criminalist Dan Anderson, clearly states the LA coroner reported drugs and alcohol were NOT factors in the accident despite widespread news reports to the contrary.

In response to San Diego 6's FOIAs, LAPD asserted a federal investigation may be pending as a reason for not releasing public information. However, the LA FBI office reported there was no investigation. Curiously a file on Hastings from the FBI obtained by Al Jazeera reveals the federal government considered Mr. Hastings' work controversial enough to keep an active file but redacted much of the report.

A number of efforts to learn more details about the leased 2013 Mercedes has been met with roadblocks because LAPD Detective White has not closed the case. As a result the leased Mercedes is off limits and Mercedes spokespeople will not comment on the accident. This suggests LAPD still has possession of the car.

Currently, San Diego 6 is waiting for more FOIA information from the FBI, DHS, DOJ, and Dept of the Army.

This week the CIA responded to a written request by stating it will provide some information on Mr. Hastings, but declined to answer any questions regarding connections between Mr. Hastings, jailed journalist Barrett Brown or Reddit’s deceased founder, Aaron Schwarz.

Interestingly, the CIA asserted federal law, which prohibits it from spying on Americans as the reason for not responding to FOIAs on Brown and Schwarz, but failed to explain why it had a file on Hastings.

The LAPD also responded to a FOIA request as to whether the ATF+E (explosive) was called to investigate the Hastings accident scene by referring SD6 to ATF+E. Earlier ATF's Chris Hoffman told San Diego 6 that he had no recollection of their dogs being sent to rule out foul play.

I would like to thank the tens of thousands of people who continue to follow this important story and the supportive comments that include many helpful tips. You can post tips for me at theKDreport.com or sandiego6.com or email: Kimberly.dvorak@hotmail.com Stay tuned more developments…

Previous stories on TV: http://www.sandiego6.com/story/Kim_Dvorak_Michael_Hastings_Latest-20130811

911 Calls: http://www.examiner.com/article/hastings-911-callers-and-new-video-confirm-large-explosions

Hastings ashes sent home: www.examiner.com/article/michael-hastings-ashes-sent-home-for-burial

Details of Hastings death remain elusive: http://www.examiner.com/article/details-of-reporter-hastings-death-remain-elusive

© Copyright 2014 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

 



* * * * *

American Democracy Outmaneuvers Obama Doctrine in Syria Reset

by Kimberly Dvorak

Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin effectively pressed the pause button in the debate over whether the U.S. and other civilized nations ought to launch a retaliatory strike against the Syrian regime for allegedly using chemical weapons against the Syrian Free Army/al-Qaeda. During this break in the beating of the war drums, Americans have an opportunity to review the Obama Doctrine from a macro view without horrific videos, egos of redlines, and the one-upmanship of diplomats to decide whether the President's planned attack can achieve its intended goals.

Link to story on San Diego 6 News

In his address to the nation the President stated, "I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them." That may have been how he campaigned, but his actions as President tell a different story. With the encouragement and outright support of President Obama, the United States has swept from power despotic regimes that supported the West and replaced them with Islamic theocracies that support Saudi religious extremism.
For Example, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient meddled in Tunisia –now Islamic; Yemen – Islamic; Libya - al-Qaeda and chaos; Egypt – Muslim Brotherhood and now military coup. What exactly does the President have in mind for Syria- brutal dictator, al-Qaeda/Islamist, Iranian or Russian influence? Only time will tell as the White House and the diplomats at Foggy Bottom haven’t released an intended end state yet.

The Obama Doctrine has also put other countries in jeopardy like Jordan, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and others across Africa and Asia region.
With the ongoing Syrian conflict, millions of additional refugees poured into the kingdom of Jordon, further destabilizing the Middle Eastern nation. Jordan has also been burdened with Palestinian refugees for nearly half a century. As a result the Palestinian influence in Jordan now makes-up a substantial portion of the Hashemite kingdom.

Another example is Turkey, a NATO member country that now leans heavily towards Islamic rule and teeters on ending Ataturk's dream of a secular Muslim country. Add to that Bahrain and Kuwait that have become increasingly oppressive as their Shiite minorities become more militant. Mali has resisted an Islamic coup with the help of France, but rest assured the Islamists are patient and look to regain their place inside the country. Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan also continue their slow dance toward Islamic rule, they too only need a spark to set them afire with Islamic extremists.

So far, Iran remains the only real barrier to the Saudi Arabian dominance in the region. For this privileged position, the Saudis work with their American and Israeli proxies to disarm Iran and seek to render the international pariah defenseless.

The Obama Doctrine has produced the most widespread and systematic Middle East policy of regime change in American history.
Who exactly is the beneficiary of this American largesse? Of course the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and its strict Islamic kingdom ruled by an absolute monarch, currently King Abdullah. Preparing for the King’s imminent death, it looks like there may be a shakeup in the House of Saud as the Kingdom made a surprise move and appointed Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz as second deputy prime minister, a post viewed as "crown prince in waiting." But many Saudi Royal watchers are betting on Khaled al-Faisal, a more liberal prince, to lead the oil-rich nation. Of note to human rightists is the fact Saudi investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor, owns a £300 million ($450 million) interest in Twitter, a major factor in the Arab Spring. The question is, was the purchase for the investment potential or as a leveraged position to control the social media in times of strife?

Of course, the House of Saud is the defender of the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, where every true believer is required to visit or haji, during ones’ lifetime. As such, the Saudis practice their ultra fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni sect of Islam as the strictest form of Islam that rejects secularism and follows the Koran and Sharia law to the letter. Beheadings, whippings, and stoning are still the customary penalties for violation of Islamic law. Saudi woman have rights only through their male relatives and are subject to male authority.

Presently, Saudi Arabia partners with uber-wealthy Qatar and together their partnership has funded the "Arab Spring" a violent overthrow of Western leaning and dependent despots in order to initiated the rise of Islamist governments throughout the region. With America, under Obama’s tutelage and its NATO partners, the Saudi's proxies have enhanced their influence and prestige throughout the region without firing a single shot, risking a single pilot, or suffering outrage from the world's governing body.

While the President clings to his mantra that he has only provided humanitarian aid to the rebels throughout Syria, former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, former CIA Director David Patreaus, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey have openly supported the Benghazi gunrunning ops that got four Americans killed. Why? In order to allow the CIA to purchase and ship tons of Libyan weapons to al-Qaeda and other Sunni jihadists into Syria’s civil war. Like the Saudis, the President has learned to deal through proxies.

Ironically, American’s naively thought Osama bin Laden's death would eliminate his dream of the reestablishment of the Caliphate from Africa to Asia. An al-Qaeda dream where Muslims could travel freely without passports or language barriers, united in the Sunni sect of Islam with the Caliph presiding over this vast landmass from Mecca. But the fact is that the Saudis harbor the same dream and now must feel they are ever closer to the coveted Caliphate.

Email Kimberly: Kimberly.dvorak@hotmail.com

Tips? theKDreport.com

Link to story on San Diego 6 News: http://www.sandiego6.com/story/Kimberly_Dvorak-20130915

Past breaking news story: http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi-1

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

 


 
 


Obama's meddling in Syria risks regional war

by Kimberly Dvorak

 San Diego 6 News TV segment: http://www.sandiego6.com/story/kimberly-dvorak-syria-conflict-20130908

President Obama’s inability to persuade world leaders at the G-20 to support a military strike against Syria coupled with Americans' war fatigue has set the stage for an Oval Office address on Tuesday. It is expected the President will make his case for America to "go it alone" with a strike against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. The President relies on U.S. intelligence data as confirmation the Al-Assad regime was the perpetrator in the Aug 21 “sarin gas” attack against civilians. Last week at his weekly address, the President declared, "... as commander in chief, I decided the U.S. should take military action against the Syrian regime."

Critics of the President's decision claim the intelligence assessment is flawed and crafted to include information the White House deems supportive of its position and disregards all exculpatory data. The document is not a consensus document prepared by the intelligence community and issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, but rather an edited version released by the White House Press Secretary.

In a memorandum addressed to President Obama, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals warn the President that "... the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident ... and that British intelligence officials also know this."

Other skeptics of the Obama administration's demand for a military strike in Syria, have stepped forward, including the Former NATO Commander for the Kosovo air campaign, Colonel Douglas MacGregor, U.S. Army (ret) who says:

“We have no interest in any side being the victor, but we have spent the last 12 years trying to kill the same people Mr. Assad is currently fighting and then on a regional level you have the larger war with Iran on the one side and Saudi Arabia and Turkey on the other—or the Sunni/Shia War.”

So will President Obama change the minds of 75 percent of Americans opposed to war, or will he allow Russia’s class clown, President Putin, to persuade al-Assad to turn over his chemical weapons to international control to avert a U.S. strike. Will President Obama who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" opt for war while Vladimir Putin speaks for peace?

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry calls on the U.S. to not be a spectator while 100,000’s of people are slaughtered and gassed.

Adding perspective to the discussion was the San Diego Diplomacy Council, which recently hosted two Syrian journalists, one reporting from Syria, Shadi Abu Fakher and the other, Zeni Adi, forced to report the war from Paris.

The Syrian reporters allege that more than 500,000 people have gone missing since the civil war began and 20 reporters have been killed trying to document the chemical attacks on its people. Another assumption they made surrounded the use of chemical attacks, claiming chemicals have been used more than 30 times.

The journalists’ family and friends, they report, operate under the constant threat of retaliation and arrest for reporting inside the warzone. Complicating the issue is the 20 plus factions fighting alongside the Syrian Free Army.

Al-Qaeda is one of those groups. While both the Syrian journalists admit al-Qaeda is fighting al-Assad, they explicitly state, “The foreign fighters do not share our values.” And conceding, “No one can predict the future…we have to trust the SFA will manage the transfer of power.”

However, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said, “Even the State Department argues that there’s no military solution here that’s good for the Syrian people, and that the best path forward is a political solution.” He argues “Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress—and Congress alone—the power to declare war. If Congress does not approve this military action, the President must abide by that decision. Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war.”

As far as the burden of proof, the President claims al-Assad gassed his own people, perhaps, but Andrew McCarthy of the National Review and PJ Media reported last week “The Iraqi military announced that it arrested five members of an al Qaeda cell that was seeking to manufacture chemical weapons, including sarin nerve gas, and plotting to conduct attacks within Iraq, Europe, and North America.” According to the Iraqi Defense Ministry’s spokesman, “the cell was plotting to use remotely-piloted model aircraft to spray some of the chemical weapons sometime next week as Shia mourners commemorated the death of Imam Kadhum.”

Also, “Turkish newspapers reported that members of an Al Nusrah Front cell were in possession of sarin gas, and were planning to conduct attacks at the Incirlik Air Base in Adana, and in Gaziantep, a city near Turkey’s border with Syria.” Furthermore, Russia has called on Turkey to share its findings in the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with a 2kg cylinder full of nerve gas sarin.

Then the revealing reporting of war correspondent, Bill Roggio, of Al-Qaeda’s well-documented quest to obtain chemical weapons and use them against the West must be taken into consideration when assigning blame for the use of sarin gas. A report from Long War Journal just three months ago documents al-Qaeda’s yearning for powerful weapons of mass destruction.

Consideration indeed, the following sources also throw a wrench into the al-Assad chemical weapon theory.

Numerous other reports explained that the Al Nusrah Front rebels were closing in on a chemical attack of their own.

McCarthy continues; “The Al Nusrah Front for the People in the Levant is al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. Al Qaeda in Iraq formed the group, and its leader has openly sworn allegiance to Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s emir. The Al Nusrah Front is one of al Qaeda’s most dangerous affiliates. More that 10,000 fighters are estimated to be in its ranks, and the group is said to be absorbing entire units from the so-called secular Free Syrian Army.”

The Long War Journal also reported, the Al Nusrah Front is suspected of launching a chlorine gas attack in March that killed 26 Syrians.

Amazingly, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that he doesn't trust the Free Syrian Army/rebels, and argued that a strike on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad should not mean support for the other side. “That's not my business to trust anybody,” Hagel said when Rep. Tom Marino, R-Penn., asked if he trusts the Syrian opposition. “Every nation, every individual, every group, responds in their own self-interest ... [T]he focus is not on good guys [versus] bad guys.”

Russian President Putin weighed-in with "... icy exchanges at a (G-20) press conference, saying you will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years."

To explain the players, CNN.com published a detailed piece describing the varying allegiances of the Syrian rebels. It reports the Free Syrian Army (SFA) consists of Secular Syrians who emphasize the rights of all Syrian people regardless of religious associations. The SFA generally has the support of westernized powers.
The moderate Islamists identify with the Muslim Brotherhood, who seek to replace the Secular leadership with a more hard-lined Islamic law and have conjoined with the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front.

The Jihadists “AKA” al-Qaeda joined the civil war late and ARE the reason America launched a war after 9/11/2001.

And finally, the Salafists hope to return the Islamic community to the first three generations following Mohammed's death and abhor the West as well as any influence it may have.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports that the House of Saud has funded and trained the Syrian Free Rebels the past three years. Their theory centers on the Iranian chip in the game that a loss for Assad is tantamount to depriving Iran the edge in the drive to control the “crescent.”

The Journal says Saudi Prince Bandar’s strategy would only be successful, if Obama ceases his indecisiveness, and demonstrates a strategic, sustained, and long-term approach to crushing the Assad regime. They further say the Obama administration must work with a coalition to take out the Syrian aircraft/fields/ammunition facilities, commit to the Syrian Free Army for the long haul (including money and military support), and an SFA representative replaces Bashar al-Assad.

Like Putin, Colonel MacGregor's analysis that the (Obama) administration’s lack of objectives, strategic, operational or tactical, for any proposed military action in Syria other than somehow “punishing” the Syrian government for use of illegal munitions (chemical weapons) leads one to believe Secretary Hagel supports "going it alone."

“I suspect Obama will do this with or without congressional authorization,” MacGregor asserts.
Former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich called for a fact-check when he published a list of 10 unproven claims before the Obama administration jumps into war.

There can be little doubt that Syria is the battleground state between the Sunni and Shiite factions of Islam. Iran, the largest Shiite nation and the natural threat to Saudi Arabia, is too big and powerful to attack, so the war begins in Syria - the Iranian ally.

So, while the U.S. President campaigns for more killing, the Russian President, pushes for the WMD disarmament of Syria in an effort to save the world from more killing while a diplomatic solution is brokered.

Email Kimberly: Kimberly.dvorak@hotmail.com

Tips ?: theKDreport.com

Link to previous story on San Diego 6 News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O__VgJKB59I&feature=share

Past breaking news story: http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi-1

Col. William O'Brien contributed to this report

© Copyright 2013 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

 


 

 

 


HASTINGS REPORT


 

CIA Director Brennan confirmed as Hastings target

By Kimberly Dvorak

This week Elise Jordan, wife of famed journalist Michael Hastings, who recently died under suspicious circumstances, corroborated this reporter's sources that CIA Director, John Brennan was Hastings next exposé project

 

 

 

 


 

 

Hastings’ 911 callers and new video confirm large explosions

By Kimberly Dvorak

 

 

It's been nearly two months since journalist Michael Hastings died in a fiery car crash in Los Angeles. A new surveillance video from a nearby business obtained by San Diego 6 News and posted by LA Weekly graphically shows multiple explosions consuming his 2013 Mercedes Benz.

 



 

 


 
 
 

Details of Reporter Hastings' death remain elusive

It’s been nearly three weeks since Michael Hastings was killed in a fiery car accident in West Los Angeles. The award-winning journalist earned his stripes as a wartime reporter and captured fame with his 2010 Rolling Stone story that forced General Stanley McChrystal to resign as commander of the US forces in Afghanistan.

Investigation into Michael Hastings accident continues

Details uncovered by this reporter shed new light into the June 18 death of journalist Michael Hastings.

Hastings’ friend and confidant SSgt. Joe Biggs disclosed a macabre twist in the award-winning journalist’s death in a suspicious single-car accident. According to SSgt. Biggs, “Michael Hastings’ body was returned to Vermont in an urn.”

This revelation provides another wrinkle in the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) handling of a case they labeled “no foul play” only hours after the writer’s death.


PRESS PLAY TO WATCH THE LATEST ON BENGHAZI


 


BENGHAZI SERIES


Cracks appear in Benghazi wall of shame

Benghazi roared back into the headlines with the allegations by a Special Operations Warrior, who witnessed that fateful night of 9/11. The whistleblower, appearing in disguise for fear of retaliation, made an appearance on Special Report with Bret Baier, where he contradicted the Obama administration’s account of Benghazi and leveled serious allegations that the military had assets in the region that were never deployed.

It does make a difference . . . Hillary? Benghazi revisited politics as usual

The latest GOP Benghazi Report certainly has the earmarks of a political hit job. The report highlights contradictions made by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as other senior officials, but it fails to make the case for assessing blame and winds-up looking like the opening salvo of the 2016 political campaign against Ms. Clinton.

Benghazi revealed—Stevens WAS the target—Terror Tuesday was the cause

 The overlooked and "palpable" motive for the killing of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty is the President's Targeted Kill List (TKL). The evidence for the “quid pro quo” killing of Ambassador Stevens by al-Qaeda is compelling.

Mike Hayden weighs in on Libya attack, questions security posture

Former CIA Director Mike Hayden says the attack on Benghazi was "predictable" and he can't comprehend why the Obama administration did not have a better security posture at the time terrorists struck the U.S. consulate and killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.


Obama's targeted kill lists celebrate fifth anniversary

It was on President Obama’s third day in office that he approved his first drone strikes in Pakistan. The first one was successful and killed a high value target. The second didn’t go as well, it leveled a house filled with civilians. While the President expressed regret over the loss of life, he has grown accustomed to his targeted kill list that is associated with “Terror Tuesdays” in the White House.

After five years of aggressive CIA drone strikes the President can say he has old al-Qaeda on the run, something his top Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein agrees with. “I think the drone is new technology and in some respects the perfect assassination weapon. It can see from 17,000 to 20,000 feet in the air, it’s very precise, it can knock out a room in a building if it’s armed, and it’s a very dangerous weapon.”

Watch Kimberly Dvorak’s San Diego 6 News segment here.

According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a leading drone tracking center, the past five years has claimed more than 2,400 non-combatant lives and caused countless injuries.

On top of that, The New York Times reported, “Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, ‘When the drones hit, they don’t see children.’”

American terrorists are also on the TKL (Targeted Kill List). Obama approved the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, and another American citizen, who was not on the TKL but was traveling with Awlaki.

Moving forward the controversial drone program continues to suffer from mishaps. A December 12 strike in Yemen killed 12 and wounded 14 civilians on their way to a wedding, none of which were terrorists. The Yemen headlines of “U.S. turns a wedding into a funeral” created a major backlash and prompted the government to reassess America’s drone policy inside the turbulent Middle Eastern nation.
We’ve been droned… are kill lists lawful and prudent?

Eleven years, trillions of dollars, 6,527 dead U.S. warriors and the Middle East is still embroiled in an endless war. Americans and its warriors are tired and broke. With all the U.S. blood and treasure expended, one would think the folks in the Middle East would be grateful, thankful; America has dedicated precious resources to “give” the Middle East democracy and freedom. They’re not.

According to a new Pew Research Center poll, 74 percent of Pakistanis think America is the enemy, a sentiment that has increased the last few years from 69 and 64 percent respectively. This shocking poll reverberates throughout the Middle East region.

But why do countries hate America more now than under the Bush Administration? Drones, targeted killings and corruption have garnered ill will with tribal leaders as well as those attending wedding parties.

Leading world news organizations, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have estimated the U.S. drone program has killed more than 4,000 people including a large number of civilian women and children since Obama became president.

Not helping matters is the White House bragging about “Terror Tuesdays” and the delight President Obama takes when he orders the death of an alleged al Qaeda operative, even if it’s an American citizen. The Constitutional scholar and purveyor of “fairness” has become the sole dispenser of justice. No Miranda rights, no judge and no jury --the presumption of innocence has effectively been tossed in the wastebasket of yesteryear under the guise of national security.

“Something that is being debated in UN hallways and committee rooms cannot apparently be talked about in U.S. courtrooms, according to the government,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project. “Whether the CIA is involved in targeted lethal operation is now classified. It's an absurd fiction.”

Once transparent candidate Obama became president, tactics in the “war on terror” shifted. The New York Times described Obama as “the man who placed himself at the helm of a top secret ‘nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.”

Christof Heyns, a UN expert in targeted killings and arbitrary executions, said U.S. drone strikes are dangerously close to “war crimes,” something of which former President George W. Bush was accused and something that now hinders his foreign travel.

However, the rookie President not only accepted former-President Bush’s covert war tactics he enhanced them. “The secret ‘nominations’ process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia,” the New York Times reports.
This policy doesn’t bode well with Pakistan's ambassador to the UN, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal intervention to cease the U.S.’s “totally counterproductive attacks.”

Heyns addressed the UN conference and added: "(Countries) may find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in (the) future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it's recognized as being an armed conflict."

He further derided the use of unmanned vehicle attacks outside the war theater as unacceptable. “It's difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to (9/11 attacks) in 2001. Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.”

While the UN throws out phrases like “conspiracy of silence” and “shine the light on independent investigation,” only time will tell if other nation’s risk Mr. Obama’s scorn to end the practice of targeted-killings. So far, the president’s national security advisor, Thomas Donilon, says Obama is determined to move forward with a kill list and act as the executioner. “He’s a president who is quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States,” Donilon quipped.

Even American citizens are not safe from aggressive shadow war tactics. “The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step (of assassinating U.S. citizens), asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch,” the New York Times reported.

Nevertheless the President took it in stride and told his former chief of staff, William Daley, “This is an easy one.” This action eventually led many in DC to demand the legal opinion memo that Obama used to deny an American citizen justice, however, like former President Bush, he decided to keep his decision secret.

“This program rests on the personal legitimacy of the president, and that’s not sustainable,” said Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA. “I have lived the life of someone taking action on the basis of secret OLC memos, and it ain’t a good life. Democracies do not make war on the basis of legal memos locked in a DOJ safe.”

On the other hand the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) warned that “immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law” when it comes to innocuous drone attacks and corruption. Ian Seiderman, ICJ director said Americans were relying on surveillance video rather than actual intelligence to prompt drone attacks on suspected al Qaeda terrorists.

So far more than 1,000 people have been killed in Pakistan by drone attacks, the Pakistani ambassador concluded. “We find the use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the war against terror. It leads to greater levels of terror rather than reducing them.”

Where’s the outrage?

The outrage simmers in the European Union. American targeted killing or drone attacks presents an enormous challenge to rule of law philosophies that dominated U.S. policy for years.

After 9/11, the CIA, Special Ops personnel and defense contractors teamed up to fight a shadowy war, outside the lines, and outside the traditional warzones. Countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been the beneficiaries of targeted killing using undetected, high-tech, armed drones. An FYI to Americans, the U.S. Congress has not declared war with any of those countries.

As commander of the United States Central Command in September 2009, General David Petraeus signed a classified order authorizing “American Special Operations troops to collect intelligence in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other places outside of traditional war zones. The result is that American military and (civilian) intelligence operatives are at times virtually indistinguishable from each other as they carry out classified operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. Some members of Congress have complained that this new way of war allows for scant debate about the scope and scale of military operations. In fact, the American spy and military agencies operate in such secrecy now that it is often hard to come by specific information about the American role in major missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen,” according to a New York Times story.

During the President’s 2008 bid, Mr. Obama spoke openly about following the letter of the law and promised Americans he would end the wars. "I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today. We should not give the president a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path." It’s been more than three years and the Obama Administration has committed an undisclosed amount of American support and resources to corrupt Afghan leaders through 2024.

Is the wink-and-a-nod policy good for the American taxpayer or is it good for Afghan President Hamid Karzai whose legendary corruption has forwarded U.S. dollars into private accounts outside his tribal nation?

The droning business goes global

Notwithstanding the obvious --what’s preventing U.S.-made drones from ending up in enemy hands? Currently money drives the American defense contractors who continue to lobby the government for the right to export drones to foreign countries like China and Israel.

American companies point to the Congressional Research Service and claimed foreign entities are beating U.S. defense contractors to the punch.

"Export restrictions are hurting this industry in America without making us any safer," said Wesley Bush, Chief Executive of Northrop. "The U.S. is struggling to sell unmanned aircraft to our allies while other nations prepare to jump into the marketplace with both feet."

Democrat Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee told the LA Times he is working with the Obama Administration to ease exporting policies. "It's crazy for us to shut off sales in this area while other countries push ahead," Berman said. "A very significant part of this economic recovery depends on exports. We need to take advantage of where our strengths lie."

While opening up the “commercial” drone market may be “good” for business others worry the technology will do more harm than good.

"The proliferation of this technology will mark a major shift in the way wars are waged," said Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association. "We're talking about very sophisticated war machines here. We need to be very careful about who gets this technology. It could come back to hurt us."

Companies like General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. that builds the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper hunter-killer drones used by the military, are also looking to break into a growing UAV marketplace by building unarmed Predator drones.

All told the U.S. drone market will make an estimated $11 billion over the next decade.

Conclusion

Looking into the future, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that foreign countries will arm and use drones to benefit their ideologies based on their law and order. Imagine that a target from the Mexican president’s “kill list” was discovered at a wedding in San Diego…

Previous drone stories: http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obomber-s-drone-strikes-kill-thousands-pakistan-1?no_cache=1390842918

For more stories: http://theKDreport.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-cia-and-state-department-run-illegal-arms-trafficking-benghazi?no_cache=1389982762

http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-revealed-stevens-was-the-target-terror-tuesday-was-the-cause-2

http://www.examiner.com/article/it-does-make-a-difference-hillary-benghazi-revisited-politics-as-usual-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/20-000-shoulder-to-air-missiles-missing-libya-1

http://www.examiner.com/article/9-11-war-on-terror-has-come-with-a-hefty-price

© Copyright 2014 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


© 2014 theKDreport.com  All rights reserved.


 

 




NOTEWORTHY  NEWS

Hillary Clinton addresses Benghazi terror attack

“My biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi,” Clinton said when asked to identify “do-overs” of her time as America's top diplomat.

LINK HERE

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

MORE WORLD NEWS

Grim assessment of wars

A USA TODAY/Pew Research Center poll underscore the erosion in support for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the loss of faith in the outcome of the wars, both launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The public's soured attitudes may make it harder the next time a president tries to persuade Americans of the value of military action when it involves putting thousands of U.S. troops in harm's way.

LINK HERE

*****


DO YOU HAVE A TIP?

Click here to send us a tip