No, no-one came up behind me with a knife or gun and demanded my money. It was far more traumatic than that because frankly, I have a unique and specific set of skills that your tax dollars paid for. I didn't go to the bank and find that my account had been emptied by someone who had stolen my identity. I know how to track those people down and recoup my losses.
I went to bed thirteen years ago to wake up to a totally changed world. The American Government and it's people had become complacent believing that the distance and waters separating us from our enemies would keep us secure within our borders and that for some unknown reason, The United States were immune from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
I had spent what I considered to be my entire life in service to this Great Nation defending Her against t all enemies foreign and domestic. Ironically, I served almost all of my military career overseas actually aiding other countries in the defense of their borders and freedoms. I stood in West Berlin Germany 110 kilometers inside Communist East Germany at the height of the Cold War. While there, we believed that each and every time we were placed on "alert" status, that the Russian Hoard was coming over The Wall and that we were the last hope for the citizens of West Berlin and all that the "Last Bastian of Freedom" stood for.
I was back in Berlin during "The Fall of The Berlin Wall". I was blessed to witness the end of Soviet oppression over East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the likes. We, THE ALLIES went into to a fight with the resolve to ensure that we saw it through to the end. Collectively, we kicked Hitler's proverbial butt and then dedicated the next 44 years to the principle that Democracy was a right of ALL people not just American people. In 1961, the Soviets erected the Wall and for 28 years, The Americans led the way in the Occupation of Berlin along with our British and French counterparts with a resolve that neither time nor cost would erode our commitment to seeing the Russian Hoard leave and to have Mr. Gorbachev "Tear down this wall".
We succeeded and I witnessed first hand families who had been separated by an arbitrary line in the dirt reunite for the first time in 28 years. I saw the Champaign flow and the reunification of Germany. I was part of something bigger than myself. I helped make history happen.
I continued my military service with pride and honor. I had married, had four children, one of which was tragically taken from us at birth and I watched with pride each and every time my children stood up when The National Anthem was played or when they stopped playing while on base when Retreat sounded and the Flag was lowered for the day. At night, they were tucked snuggly into their modest but safe beds and they rested there worry free of any evil visiting them during the night. After all, Dad was on watch. If I could help secure the borders of foreign lands surely, I need not worry about someone being stupid enough to try to visit harm against Americans on American soil.
Not so, it seemed. On September 11th, 2001, the unthinkable happened. We went to sleep and our enemies were awake and not only did they visit horrible evils upon us, we showed time and time after relentless time on the news for days. There was no safe haven. We were rapt in the horror that someone, anyone could have so much hatred for the Land We Love that they would die to inflict evil upon us. Terror had hit home and I and others were left to try to explain to our children why they were no longer safe at night.
"Dad, why are you crying?" "Dad, why are you sitting up by my bed?" "Dad, why would anyone do such a thing." It was done because evil dwells in the hearts of men. What I and generations of honorable men and women who dedicated their lives to protect "From Sea to Shining Sea" was gone in an instant. For the first time since Pearl Harbor, Americans were attacked ruthless on our own soil. This somehow seemed more tragic to me because in my opinion, at least Pearl Harbor was not on the Continental United States and I could justify that our physical borders were still secure.
I like everyone else, had fallen victim to the belief that we were untouchable on our own soil.
I still apologize to my children. I am still haunted by the thought that "WE" should have seen this coming and that The Most Powerful Nation in the World could have prevented these attacks from happening. I was robbed of the ideals and principles I and others like me truly believed in; "NOT ON MY WATCH". Well, it was my watch. It did happen and no, time doesn't heal that wound.
We The People need to learn from our past that if we do not intend to complete the task, we should not take up the sword. I want my children's children to know the serenity that I slept with as a child. I was robbed of that. They were robbed of that and they don't even know how to begin to understand what it is they were robbed of.
I was robbed and it was so much worse than at gun or knife point.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Today I was watching the morning news and there were two segments back to back that astounded me. The first was about the First Lady being in Los Angeles for a visit with her daughter, to raise funds for the DNC and to be the Key Note Speaker at a luncheon at the Century Plaza Hotel bringing light to the veterans who are unemployed, under employed and homeless in the area. According to this story, there are between 36,000 and 56,000 homeless men, women and children in the Greater Los Angeles Area of which some estimated 6,000 are veterans. Wow - we don't even have close to an accurate count.
The second story, as brief as it was, told how our new Mayor, Gil Garciette just announced that he is eager to help house the "migrant" children in the area. I took that to mean the illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants depending on your particular preference. I would love to help each and every man, woman and child in need but as has been said, "Charity begins at home." How can the Mayor justify spending any funds on the undocumented before attempting to care for our own in need?
Before you jump to any false conclusions, I 100% support the immortally poetic words at the Statue of Liberty National Park:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
My thought is simple - force our Government to fix the systemic problems within the greed driven politico's who wide in the fortress that is Congress, the Senate and yes even The White House so that those who would come here seeking a better life truly stand a chance. At this moment, We The People and our elected officials are ensuring that the quality of life of those tire, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free remains diminished. They live in constant fear of deportation. They work in below minimum wage jobs to live in flea, rate and roach infested slums with no hot water because they are threatened with La Migra should they attempt to file a complaint.
Let We The People sound off and demand that our elected officials find a way to fix the broken system that is INS. Let US stand and demand that the political hot potato of illegal vs undocumented aliens be staffed with public servants who are trained and equipped to review the applications in a timely fashion thereby alleviating the need for those who seek freedom to enter our borders in dangerous conditions and under dubious care of Coyote's.
ONLY by FIXING the system at the root of the problem can we actually disempower the rest of the hot bed political issues and begin to show true compassion for those in search of a better life.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
This has been an epic week. As I sit here quietly and reflect on the events of the past week, I actually had to stifle a giggle. The United State Soccer Team lost the game but won the advancement to the Round of 16. Chalk one up for the U.S.
That is however miniscule in comparison to the major shift in the Supreme Court of The United States as evidenced in the rulings of the week. This week saw the Supreme Court Justices unite against the Oval Office and in favor of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The instant matters revolved around two cases in which Law Enforcement conducted what they alleged were “searches commensurate to arrest” which included the contents of the arrestee’s cell phones.
The Justices were exceptionally clear on Page 19 and 20 of their decision when they address the difference between the data and metadata contained on cell and smart phones. The entire decision can be read here: This is a direct quote from the text:
“Although the data stored on a cell phone is distinguished from physical records by quantity alone, certain types of data are also qualitatively different. An Internet search and browsing history, for example, can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individual’s private interests or concerns—perhaps a search for certain symptoms of disease, coupled with frequent visits to WebMD. Data on a cell phone can also reveal where a person has been. Historic location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building."
Why bother putting this out here to the World? Well, that is less complicated than the ruling. For several years now, I have quietly been one of the core Plaintiff’s in KLAYMAN et al v. OBAMA et al. The cases hinge upon the NSA’s intrusions into the private lives of all Americans by their collection of the Metadata and all of the other violations of the 4th Amendment.
According to the ruling this week by the Justice’s which was 9 to 0:
Our cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment was the founding generation’s response to the reviled “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” of the colonial era, which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity. Opposition to such searches was in fact one of the driving forces behind the Revolution itself. In 1761, the patriot James Otis delivered a speech in Boston denouncing the use of writs of assistance. A young John Adams was there, and he would later write that “[e]very man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.” 10 Works of John Adams 247–248 (C. Adams ed. 1856). According to Adams, Otis’s speech was “the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.” Id., at 248 (quoted in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 625 (1886)).
Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd, supra, at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.
We reverse the judgment of the California Court of Appeal in No. 13–132 and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. We affirm the judgment of the First Circuit in No. 13–212.”
Chalk up another one for We The People.
Lastly, the Supreme Court held that the State of Massachusetts had impinged upon the Citizens’ 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.
As time and tide progress, so will the cases in which I am involved with Larry Klayman; against the Government’s blatant disregard for the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution of These United States.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW
Dear Commander in Chief,
There are a great many of us who have questions regarding the disappearance of now SGT BERGDAHL from his unit while deployed in Afghanistan. I trust that as the Commander in Chief, you will be able to clear these issues up for We The People.
1) Is it true that SGT. BERGDAHL shipped all or most of his personal possessions back home to his family three days before going missing?
2) Is it true that SGT BERGDAHL sent e-mails to his family disavowing the actions of the United States and it's military forces in Afghanistan?
3) Did SGT BERGDAHL desert from the United States Army?
4) Did SGT BERGDAHL aide, abet or assist the enemy in any way before, during or after his alleged capture?
5) Why did Susan Rice state that this exchange was so critical at the time it took place that Congress could not have been afforded the proper notice as required by law when the video's of BERGDAHL in captivity show him eating a well balanced meal and in seeming good health?
6) Is it true that SGT BERGDAHL'S father is Muslim?
7) If SGT BERGDAHL had not deserted, would the six service men who were attempting to locate and rescue him have been killed or wounded?
8) Is it true that you, the Commander in Chief were aware of and pressing for the release of these five high level Taliban detainees for more than two years? (That is a YES or NO question)
9) This is the most important question, Why were the members of SGT BERGDAHL'S platoon ALL required to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding the circumstances of his capture?
These are fairly straight forward questions that as the Commander in Chief you should absolutely be able and willing to answer in an equally straight forward fashion.
Oh one more things before I forget Sir, have you upheld your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
Thank you in advance for your anticipated response,
We The People
Sunday, June 1, 2014
WHAT DOES BOWE KNOW?
First let me start off by saying congratulations to the family of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on the occasion of his release from the Taliban. If it had been my son, I would have gone to nearly any extreme to secure his release from captivity and generally this would be about the second happiest day of my life.
This morning, I watched the news on ABC, please note that this was not FOX News but rather ABC and then the interview of National Security Advisor Susan Rice on the George Stephanopoulos Program, The following is a direct quote from the dialog that ensued as taken from the above transcript published by ABC.
Let's bring those questions to the president's national security adviser Susan Rice. Thank you for joining us this morning.
Let's begin with how Bowe Bergdahl is doing right now. We know he's landed in Germany. What more can you tell us about how he's doing, his health?
SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, George, first of all, this is a joyous day. The fact that he is now safely in American hands and will be reunited with his family and his community is incredible.
He's now in Landstuhl hospital in Germany. He's going through all of the requisite evaluations and care. And he is said to be walking and in good physical condition. And we look forward to the days to come in which we'll have an even better sense of how he's doing and we look forward to when he can return to the United States, continue his rehabilitation and be reunited with his family.
Wait! Stop the Presses!!! Lets exam this statement with what she says next about why The President did not inform Congress of this deal as required by law:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Also questions about whether the president violated the law, that charge has come from congress as well, that he was supposed to notify members of congress before the transfer of any GITMO detainees.
RICE: Well, George, in fact what we had to do and what did do, consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, is prioritize the health of Sergeant Bergdahl. We had reason to be concerned that this was an urgent and an acute situation, that his life could have been at risk. We did not have 30 days to wait. And had we waited and lost him, I don't think anybody would have forgiven the United States government.
I am a chess player and retired from the United States Army. I fully understand making trades of a strategic nature to win the war. What The President did in this instance was to trade five Taliban Detainees four of which were extremely high ranking and had previously been tagged as "High Risk" for one Private First Class who by nature of his continued time in service on the rolls of the Department of Defense was promoted two pay grades while being held captive.
So I am forced to ask myself, "What did Bowe know?" What information did now Sergeant Bergdahl possess that caused The President of The United States to circumvent the Law of the Land and make a Deal With The Devil without the required notice to Congress?
RICE: "We did not have 30 days to wait. And had we waited and lost him, I don't think anybody would have forgiven the United States government."
As a young man growing up in the Mid-West, I watched Smokey and The Bandit. There is an appropriate line in the move where Burt Reynolds says words to the effect of: "I have an excellent Bull Shit Detector. I can tell when someone is pissing on my boots and telling me it's raining."
Folks this is not rain!!!!
We have a young man who may have deserted his post in time of war and either voluntarily broken his "TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGENCE" to the United States by surrendering OR may have left his post by being Derelict In The Performance of His Duties and allowed himself to be captured and now, we have a President who simply feels himself ABOVE THE LAW making a deal that may potentially costs thousands of American lives by releasing five high ranking terrorists back onto the field of battle to plot, plan and execute whatever heinous acts they have been dreaming of as revenge during their detention.
We all witnessed the complete embarrassment of Former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney as he fumbled to defend the last round of pointed questions put to him by the White House Press Pool. Since Rice says that the President spoke with the Leader of QATAR on Tuesday, it seems obviously clear why CARNEY chose to resign so suddenly. THIS IS NOT RAIN and he knows there is no way this is going to bode well.
Friday, May 2, 2014
What is an SCA Warrant?
In short, an SCA (Stored Communications Act) Warrant is a device used by the Federal Government to obtain information from Microsoft and others regarding individual users actual information stored on the companies computers. This goes beyond the normal information that the Government admits that it is already gathering regarding an account holder's usage activity and gets to the meat and potatoes of what that user searches for, message content etc.... The Stored Communications Act (SCA) was enacted in 1986 as part of the larger Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and sought to provide 4th Amendment-like protections to the contents of electronic communications in the hands of service providers like Microsoft.
Here is the scary part, U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, ruled last Friday that Microsoft must turn over the records sought by the U.S. Government even though the records they were seeking lay outside the United States in Ireland.
(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.— A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.
Under the SCA, the government can obtain certain kinds of electronic information held by a service provider only upon a showing of probable cause of wrongdoing. Obtaining the actual content of an electronic communication requires a higher showing than for, say, account information. If the showing requirement is met, a court can issue an SCA Warrant. The SCA Warrant is served on a service provider, who then conducts a search and produces relevant communications.
The article continues and states:
In its motion to quash the SCA Warrant in this case, Microsoft’s argument was simple: warrants are not subpoenas. If the government served a subpoena on Microsoft, then Microsoft would be required to produce relevant information within its possession, custody or control regardless of where it physically resided. But, by attempting to obtain information located on servers in Ireland via a warrant, the U.S. government sought information outside of the territorial limits of the United States. Because Federal courts have no authority to issue warrants for the search and seizure of property outside the territorial limits of the United States, Microsoft argued it should not be required to produce the information. In support of its argument, Microsoft noted the SCA Warrant is referred to as just that, a “warrant,” and also requires to the use of warrant procedures in obtaining it.
Here is the unbelievable part:
This argument, however, failed to convince Judge Francis. After conceding Microsoft’s analysis was “not inconsistent with the statutory language” of the SCA, Judge Francis held that the SCA Warrant was not a typical warrant, but was a “hybrid: part search warrant and part subpoena.” It is a like a search warrant in that an application is made to a magistrate upon a showing of probable cause.
This so-called Magistrate Judge has single-handedly changed the intent of the 4th Amendment single without any concern for citizen's rights, case law or waiting for the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the wide spread implications of granting the government even more power and authority to invade the reasonable expectations of "We The People".
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Today I watched the entire heated exchange between Press Secretary Carney and the reporter attempting to gain clarity regarding the Administrations prior statements about what they knew regarding the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. That entire exchange is available for your own review here for your own review and consideration. In this exchange, Carney attempts to deflect and redirect the journalist with regards to the contradictions in statements made by the Administration and what was found in the e-mail released to Justice Watch through their recent Freedom of Information Act Request.
I found that contrary to Carney's assertions in the exchange that according to U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-38774 Doc No C054152280 Dated 04/17/2014, that on page two of the heavily redacted document production the exact following:
"Q) What's your response to the Independent story that says we have intelligence 48 hours in advance of the Benghazi attack that was ignored?
This story is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. We also see indications that this action was related to the video that has sparked protests in other countries."
It is important to remember that these were admittedly the "TOPLINE POINTS" that were given to Secretary Rice to help her prepare for her Sunday Morning T.V. appearance. The administration knew that the questions were coming and this was the response that they came up with for her to tell the entire world on Sunday morning.
The Administration has attempted to duck and dodge this issue for far too long. They have attempted to have the public believe that this was not a preplanned attack which we now know is completely lacking in credibility. Our former military leaders previously assigned to Germany state that the military should have been sent in. We have former Government officials stating that they knew of the possibility of this having been a pre-planned terrorist attack and still the White House attempts to have us believe otherwise. In the story published by USA Today, today it is clear that Air Force Brigadier General Lovell, Retired who served on the Africa Command stated: "This was no demonstration gone terribly awry."
The good General was testifying before the House Subcommittee on Government Oversight and Reform when Lovell stated:
"Lovell's testimony contradicts the story that the Obama administration gave in the early days following the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Back then the administration insisted that the best intelligence it had from CIA and other officials indicated that the attack was a protest against an anti-Islam video that turned violent."
More disturbingly was Lovell's statement:
"As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above," Lovell said.
While people on the ground were fighting for their lives, discussions among U.S. leaders outside Libya "churned on about what we should do," but the military waited for a request for assistance from the State Department, Lovell said.
So while the White House and the Administration would have us believe that there was no real or actionable intelligence to indicate that the boots on the ground in Benghazi were at risk, the Leading Democrat on the Committee asks:
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, cited the testimony of then-commander of AFRICOM Gen. Carter Ham and others who testified that the military moved a special forces unit from Europe to Sicily while the attack was ongoing, and sent a special anti-terrorism team of Marines to Tripoli within a day of the attack.
"Why are you testifying that the U.S. military did not try to save lives," Cummings asked.
Lovell said he was not disputing that information.
"I did not say we did not try," Lovell said. "What I'm speaking to is that we as a nation need to try to do more, in preparations, so that in the future ... we can support the people and have their backs."
Why then is it so important that "We The People" fall for this cover story or allow the facts to be swept away in some tide of time? Perhaps the answer lies in the 2016 Presidential elections. If Benghazi goes away and the entire nation suddenly gets a case of CRS (Can't Remember Squat), the this would not tarnish Hilary's chances at a run for the oval office. This is a woman who reportedly knew of the impending attack, allegedly knew that the boots on the ground were asking for help to defend against a potential threat which we now know was not only credible but resulted in the senseless and unnecessary loss of American lives and most importantly, she is the woman who absolutely decided to ignore all of the evidence, warnings and requests for assistance thereby signing the death warrant of our Fellow Americans.