When “incidental” intel collection—isn’t incidental

The following is a news analysis. I’ve spoken to a small group of reliable, formerly high-placed intelligence officials who have dropped a few interesting tidbits on me of late. Here’s my understanding, based on the discussions:  It’s not true that wiretaps and/or electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens can “only” be done with a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court order.  Besides the FISA court, “wiretapping” or electronic surveillance can also be done under Title III authority. The government used this authority, for example, in the Justice Department’s secret Fast and Furious “gunwalking” case.  Additionally, U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution.  The public will rarely know about such presidential directives since most who see them must sign agreements that promise nondisclosure and consent to polygraphs.  Computer surveillance is a gray area in the intelligence community where many insiders argue the traditional privacy restrictions and surveillance rules don’t necessarily apply.  The term “wiretapping” is used in a general sense to refer to electronic eavesdropping, even though the actual “tapping” of “wires” is not routinely necessary with today’s technology. Telekom Malaysia technician wiretaps a serving area interface. Photo by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas  Surveillance of domestic communications can be conducted in international waters where U.S. law doesn’t apply. A U.S. submarine at sea.  There are “back-door” ways to collect and report on a target without Title III or FISA court authority. If it’s for political purposes or blackmail, this may consist of “inventing” an excuse to surveil the target.  If the work of targeting an individual cannot be accomplished by government intel officers, it can be contracted out to third parties or to foreign parties who aren’t bound by U.S. law.  Incidental collection of a U.S. citizen target may be “orchestrated” for political reasons by those who have tools and tradecraft available to them because of their positions of power. There are ways to do it with no fingerprints. For example: 1. Locate a foreign target already under CIA surveillance. 2. Have a government agent use the foreign target’s phone and/or computer to make it look like the foreigner contacted the U.S. citizen whose communications are sought. The contacts can be benign, but they establish a record that falsely implies a relationship exists between the U.S. citizen and the foreign target. 3. The government agent can also mimic a communication back from the U.S. citizen to the foreign target, creating an appearance that the U.S. citizen-initiated contacts. This could be favorable to justifying a warrant on the U.S. citizen later. 4. The U.S. citizen is now tied to the foreign entity and is now an “incidental” collection target that can be surveilled in a “masked” format. Although “masked,” the surveilling agency knows the U.S. citizen’s identity. 5. If the U.S. citizen does anything that can be construed as illegal or suspicious, it’s possible the intel agency can then receive approval to surveil him directly rather than only “incidentally.”  Possibly inappropriate requests to “unmask” names of U.S. citizens captured during surveillance of a foreign target may be preceded by a chain of communications intended to provide a pretense or cover story to justify the unmasking. Watch Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson Sundays on TV and online. Preorder The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, How You Feel, What You Think and How You Vote.

Watch: Fullmeasure.news/sunday-april-9-2017

To Russia With Love

Remember the days when the Democrats loved Russia? So what happened (TRUMP)

The Obama Factor-I used to think I was just a regular gal/guy

I used to think I was just a regular guy, but . . .

I was born white, which now, whether I like it or not, makes me a racist.

I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which by today's standards, makes me a fascist.

I am heterosexual, which according to gay folks, now makes me a homophobic.

I am non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business.

I am a Christian, which now labels me as an infidel.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, which now makes me a member of the vast gun lobby.

I am older than 70, which makes me a useless old man.

I think and I reason, therefore I doubt much that the mainstream media tells me, which must make me a reactionary.

I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture, which makes me a xenophobe.

I value my safety and that of my family and I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right-wing extremist.

I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual's merits, which today makes me an anti-socialist.

I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland for and by all citizens, which now makes me a militant.

Now, a sick old woman is calling me and my friends a basket of deplorables.

Please help me come to terms with the new me . . . because I'm just not sure who I am anymore!

I would like to thank all my friends for sticking with me through these abrupt, new found changes in my life and my thinking!

I just can't imagine or understand what's happened to me so quickly!

Funny . . . it's all just taken place over the last 7 or 8 years!

As if all this wasn't enough to deal with.

I'm now afraid to go into either restroom!

Author Unknown

Thanks To Norma Jean Wesley for bringing me this!

Obama says there little difference between Capitalism and Communism-Really

Obama in Argentina said " there little difference between Capitalism and Communism" Really! You must see this Video. And guess what, Hillary want's to "expand on Obama's philosophies and policies!
Obama Endorses Death of 200 Million People. Sounds like it is playing right in to Bernie's hands. He was speaking in Argentina, but believe me he was talking to us. And he knows it!

President Obama Signs Executive Order Limiting US Gun Owners to Three Guns

WASHINGTON — In a move that promises to permanently transform the political landscape in the United States, President Obama has signed Executive Order 13752, an order which will radically change the way the United States regulates all weapons. President Obama claims that his authority to draft this order comes from the second amendment: “If you look at the second amendment, you’ll see that it says that ‘a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.’ Well, when I see kids getting shot at school and people gunning down their coworkers, I don’t see a well-regulated militia. I don’t see a state that is secure in its freedom. I see a nation in crisis. I see a country in desperate need of reform. If you want to exercise your right to bear arms, that’s fine, but if you want to do that, you should be ready and able to defend your country at a moment’s notice.”

Under the new law, nearly every gun in the U.S. will be required to be registered. There are exceptions for single and double barrel shotguns, single shot and double barrel hunting rifles, black powder guns, and any gun made before 1932. No U.S. citizen will be allowed to have more than three guns registered to them at any time. Possession of an unregistered firearm, expect those exempted from registration, will be a felony that carries a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in federal prison. States that refuse to enforce the new laws will lose federal highway and Medicaid funding.

In addition to requiring firearm registration, all citizens who wish to own or possess a weapon will be required to obtain a gun operator’s license. Two licenses will be available. A class one license will grant its owner the legal right to purchase and possess firearms which do not require registration; they will also be allowed use a friend’s registered weapon or rent a registered weapon from a licensed shooting range, provided that they handle the weapon under the supervision of a class two license holder. In order to obtain a class one license, the individual must undergo a criminal background and mental health screening and complete a three day, government approved gun safety course. In order to obtain a class two license, the individual must commit to at least one weekend per month of military training and must be prepared to mobilize in case of a national emergency. The class two license will allow them to register up to three weapons for personal use. When not in use, the weapons and ammunition must be locked in separate, government approved cabinets. All ammunition sales, even those for unregistered weapons, will be registered in a national database, and strict limits will be placed on how much ammunition can be purchased. The limits vary depending on the type of ammunition.
NRA spokesman Lawrence Ketchum enjoying a day of target shooting (Cassandra Schmidt / AP)
NRA spokesman Lawrence Ketchum enjoying a day of target shooting (Cassandra Schmidt / AP)

Once the new law is implemented, citizens will have one year to register/surrender their weapons. The government will purchase all surrendered weapons at current retail value. All of the surrendered weapons will be housed in strategically placed bunkers across the U.S. for use by the newly created citizen militia in training exercises and in case of a national emergency.
Also of note in the order is a provision that orders the federal government to assemble a panel which will analyze the effectiveness of current knife regulations, though it does nothing to alter current knife laws.

Executive Order 13752 is not without controversy. National Rifle Association Spokesman Lawrence Ketchum said the organization plans to appeal the order, which he refers to as “Obama gun”, on constitutional grounds and that they were prepared to take the fight to the Supreme Court . He also added that if federal agents attempted to confiscate his weapons he would give them to the agents “bullets first.”

It does not appear that the legal fight over the new executive order will be resolved any time soon. In the meantime, however, it is recommended that all U.S. gun owners begin to prepare themselves for the coming changes. If you are wondering how to register or surrender your weapons, or just want to learn more about the president’s new executive order, you can contact the ATF’s Firearms Registration Division at (202) 642-5720.

Contributors

Obama, Kerry and Congress Guilty of Material Support to Terrorism

Obama, Kerry and Congress Guilty of Material Support to Terrorism:
 Kerry told to justify $1.7B Iran payment
A $1.7B SETTLEMENT PAID TO IRAN -- described by some Republicans as a 'ransom' tied to last month's release of five American prisoners -- should be fully explained by Secretary of State John Kerry, says the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee.

Now we learn that Mr. Obama not only has hidden the terms of his agreement, but

 Now we learn that Mr. Obama not only has hidden the terms of his agreement, but has also deferred the national interest to the United Nation's IAEA, and permitted secret side deals between the agency and Iran.

(TRPG) Daily Newsletter:

Benghazi-We know four who could not

Benghazi-We know four who could not!


The 2012 Benghazi attack took place on the evening of September 11, 2012, when Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer . Sean SmithStevens was the first U.S. Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979. The attack has also been referred to as the Battle of Benghazi.
Several hours later, a second assault targeted a different compound about one mile away, killing CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.Ten others were also injured in the attacks

Judge Napolitano Exposes The REAL Reason Why Gen. Petraeus Is Getting Demoted

Judge Andrew  Napolitano, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, appeared on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” on Thursday to slam Defense Secretary Ashton Carter for possibly demoting Gen. David Petraeus retroactively.
The Obama administration claims that the proposed demotion stems from Petraeus’ conviction for mishandling classified information by giving it to his biographer and mistress, Paula Broadwell.
Judge Nap questioned Carter’s reasoning for the possible, saying, “Is this political? Is this to send him a message? ‘Don’t tell everybody what you know about Benghazi because we’ll keep coming after you.'"
 
Of course we all know Obama's intimation tactics. From the IRS, EPA, Justice Department and anything else this dictator can pull out of his hat. And what does the Rino's do, nothing, zip. Oh they do give him all the money he wants!

Obama Orders Hillary Clinton Arrest If Trump Assassinated

Obama Claims to have taught Constitutional Law, but Here’s What He Really did at the University of Chicago

During a townhall meeting on guns, which I wrote about here, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah said, "I believe in the Second Amendment. It is there, written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this — I get it." However, one writer has sought to clarify that Obama was not actually a professor, which means he never taught constitutional law.

Karin McQuillan writes at American Thinker:

    Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer.  He did not have the qualifications to be a professor.  Obama never published a single law paper.  He was hired by the University of Chicago when they learned he had been given a book contract on race and law directly after graduating from Harvard.  There was no book – just the contract, which he later reneged on.  This is not the normal level of accomplishment for a University of Chicago professor or even lecturer.

    Well, I suppose Obama's deception and outright lies are par for the course. So, no one is surprised by them. In fact, many have questioned his mental stability as a result of his chronic lying. The irony is that he has used the mental health issue to go after people's guns, especially our veterans.

    So, if he didn't actually teach constitutional law as he claims, then what did he do?

    McQuillan continues:

        Obama did not specialize in the Constitution.  Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race.  One course was about race in the Constitution.  It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar.

Contributor: http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/obama-claims-to-have-taught-constitutional-law-but-heres-what-he-really-did-at-the-university-of-chicago/

What is a Ghost Gunner

How is a Ghost Gunner Manufactured?

I Pet Goat Abstract

Mike Morell Past CIA Director Tells Obama's Involvment With ISIS

Tyranny: Obama Announcing Gun Control Executive Order

It is happening. Barack Obama is dangerously close to enacting an executive order that completely flouts the law and puts a whole new background check requirement on law abiding Americans.

Last week, the Democrats again tried to force a vote on a gun registration bill. Because world history has shown that registration precedes confiscation 100% of the time in Western Democracies, the Republicans voted it down. It happened in Australia, in the United Kingdom, and confiscation is currently being debated in the European Union. The Republicans have always said that a gun registration bill is automatically off the table.

Now, Obama is angry. So angry, in fact, that he is just days away from announcing the most sweeping executive order yet.

The Los Angeles Times – hardly a Conservative paper – is reporting that the San Bernardino terror attack will be the launching point for Barack Obama’s latest gun control executive order to force all gun purchases and transfers to be recorded with the Federal government.

Not only would this be in clear violation of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, which outlines our background check system, but it would also be a clear violation of the Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986 which explicitly prohibits the Federal government from keeping an active registry of American gun owners.

The executive order that the White House is poised to announce is not only illegal, but it is completely unconstitutional. When the Founding Fathers warned of tyranny, this is what they were talking about. When they said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, this is what they warned you to watch out for!

So what are we going to do about it? We are going to raise hell. We are going to put more resources into stopping this horrible executive order than we ever have.

Our fax system is unlike anything out there in the country. It allows you to instantly contact your Congressman and Senators in a tangible way. Emails get deleted. Phone calls get ignored. But every fax, by law, has to be printed out in Congressional offices. It’s impossible to ignore us when the faxes are piled up to the ceiling!

But we need your help!

The hour is upon us. Right now, the Obama administration is crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s on an executive order to start the process towards nation-wide gun confiscation!

This is happening now. We don’t get to choose our battles. As the Constitution’s last line of defense, we have a civic obligation to fight any and every manifestation of government tyranny.

Please, take the time and FaxBlast Congress demanding that they stop this lawless President and, yes, if necessary, impeach him!

Obama on fighting Islamic State: “I’m not interested in…America winning”

Obama said: “What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually gonna work to protect the American people and to protect people in the region.”
Limbaugh points out just what is wrong and odd about this: “America winning has no relationship to protecting the American people?” Indeed, how can that be?

“Limbaugh: Obama not interested in winning against ISIS,” by Joe Kovacs, WND
In the wake of the Paris terror attacks last week, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh says President Obama has no interest in winning against the Islamic terror group ISIS.
At a news conference Monday, Obama was asked if his “reluctance to enter another Middle East war and [his] preference of diplomacy over using the military makes the U.S. weaker and emboldens our enemies.”
Obama responded: “Some of [my critics] seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference, because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing is talking as if they’re tough. Folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually gonna work to protect the American people and to protect people in the region.”

Brigitte Gabriel Reads the Muslim Brotherhood Plan for America

Silence is Consent

Brigitte Gabriel Reads the Muslim Brotherhood Plan for America

ACT for America president and founder Brigitte Gabriel, speaks at the Family Research Council's Watchmen on the Wall event about the threat of radical Islam. In this clip she outlines the Muslim Brotherhood's plan for the destruction of Western civilization. The Muslim Brotherhood has spawned dozens and dozens of organizations across the globe, including the terrorist organizations al Qaeda, Hamas, and numerous Muslim organizations in America.

Secret Service in Cover-Up Mode on Obama Travel Costs

There may be legitimate reasons for the Secret Service to keep some documents from the public. But concealing taxpayer-funded security expenses for Barack Obama's luxury vacations sure isn't one of them. That's why your JW has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Secret Service for failing to respond to 19 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for security-related expenses related to travel by Barack Obama and other VIPs. The Secret Service has not responded to any of the 19 FOIA requests since July 21, 2014. The FOIA lawsuit, filed on November 10, asks the court to enjoin the Secret Service from continuing to withhold responsive documents from Judicial Watch. (The Secret Service is a component of the Department of Homeland Security.) The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. For years, Judicial Watch has regularly monitored expenditures of U.S. Government funds by the president, members of the first family, and other VIPs receiving Secret Service protection. FOIA requests to the U.S. Air Force and other agencies enabled Judicial Watch to determine that, to date, the total known travel expenses for various trips by the Obamas and Bidens are currently $70,563,336.75. But the extraordinary lack of cooperation by the Secret Service has prevented Judicial Watch from gathering complete records of taxpayer-funded, VIP travel. These Secret Service records typically include records of expenses incurred for ground transportation, lodging, meals, and other related costs, as well as the accompanying Secret Service details. The lawsuit details: Since July 21, 2014, Plaintiff has submitted 19 travel-related FOIA requests to the Secret Service as part of Plaintiffs on-going monitoring of federally-funded, VIP travel. All of the requests were identical or nearly identical but for the name of the VIP and the date and/or destination of the travel. Plaintiffs requests sought: "All records concerning use of U.S. Government funds to provide security and/or any other services to [name of VIP] and any other companions on their [date] trip to [location]." The Secret Service has not made a determination on a single, travel-related FOIA request served by Plaintiff since July 21, 2014. Judicial Watch previously sued the Secret Service five times between 2012 and 2014 for security related information on presidential and VIP travel. Prior litigation and other FOIA requests resulted in a number of details about security costs of trips to New York for a "date night" ($11,648.17), a 2013 trip to Africa ($2,189,727.60), a 2013 adventure to Ireland ($251,161.86), and 2014 fundraising trip to Denver ($200,383.70). Judicial Watch asserts that the Secret Service has "a policy and practice of violating FOIA" requirements, Judicial Watch attorneys are asking the court to enjoin the Secret Service from continuing to withhold the requested records and other information from Judicial Watch for 19 current requests. Prior examples of Judicial Watch FOIA requests that gathered travel cost information include: A February and March 2015 golf and fundraising trip which cost taxpayers $4,436,245.50 in travel expenses alone; A June 2015 trip by Michelle Obama to the UK and Italy which cost taxpayers $240,495.67 in travel expenses alone; A March 2014 trip by Michelle Obama to China which cost taxpayers $360,000 in travel expenses alone; An April 2015 single day trip to the Florida Everglades for Earth Day which cost taxpayers $866,615.40 in travel expenses alone; And a February 2015 weekend ski trip by Michelle Obama to Aspen, Colorado, which cost taxpayers $57,000 in travel expenses alone. Rarely does Judicial Watch seek an injunction under FOIA, but the Secret Service has ignored a record 19 Freedom of Information requests on Obama and other presidential-level travel. The FOIA requests seek access to records about taxpayer dollars expended on the extravagant and often unnecessary travel enjoyed by the President, his family members, and others receiving Secret Service protection. We have little doubt the Secret Service, which is already mired in controversy, is covering up embarrassing numbers about the costs of security for Barack Obama's vacation and political fundraising trips. State Department Rushed Approval for Hillary Clinton's Memoirs) We've been stonewalled for years on our Benghazi and Clinton cash Freedom of Information requests and lawsuits by the State Department. However, if you are Hillary Clinton, the State Department will rubber stamp your proposed, perhaps with sensitive information that should not see the light of day, in record time. That's the conclusion from reviewing the documents we just released revealing that State Department officials ordered rushed approval of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's manuscript for her memoir Hard Choices. The documents show a key State Department official had concerns about the disclosure of classified information in the book concerning Iran and an effort to destroy draft copies of Clinton's book in State Department files and from State Department computer systems. The documents were obtained from the State Department last month in response to a June 12, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking the following: Records regarding the review, vetting, and/or approval of the publication of the memoir Hard Choices by former Secretary of State Clinton. This request includes, but it not limited to records of communications between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of State and any other individual or entity related to the review and approval process. (It took over a year to respond to our request!) The documents show the first Clinton book chapters were delivered to Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services John Hackett in February 2014. Hackett began pressuring his staff for approval on March 7. On March 10, Senior Reviewer Charles Daris urged reviewers at the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau to "turn these around as quickly as possible to meet the hopes and expectations of the author." That same day, State Department official Neil Silver writes: "The FOIA office is under great pressure to turn this around quickly. If you are tardy in your response, you may get a high-level Department official call. On March 13, Daris emails show that the Near East staff was given three working days to respond to the book's chapter on Benghazi and that the State Department delayed sending the manuscript to the CIA for review at the request of former Clinton campaign staffer Ethan Gelber. Daris also documents that factual errors have been found in the Iran chapter and that the Maghreb desk has "comment" on the CIA in Benghazi. The documents also show an effort to destroy copies of draft copies of the Clinton book, evidently because "revisions were in the works." A March 20 exchange with State Department official Paul P. Blackburn reads: • Daris: New marching orders from our Front Office. Will you please suspend our request for clearance and find a way to get all/all of the copies back that you sent to EAP [East Asian and Pacific Affairs]. Please confirm to me when you have done so. • Blackburn: I have just retrieved the two copies of the chapter portions Neil passed to the China and Japan desks (i.e., pages 53-73 of "Back to Beijing" and 87-119 of "Green Light.") In each case, I was assured that no reproductions were made, so I think we now have "all/all of the copies." • Daris: Excellent, Paul. Please destroy them. Thank you. C The documents show a sudden decision to halt all work on the review of Clinton's chapter on Iran, followed by a request that all extant copies be found and destroyed, apparently prompted by the State Department's Iran Desk's concerns about the manuscript. State Department officials were cautioned to be careful in how they proffered editorial suggestions to the former Secretary's staff. In a March 12, 2014, email to Silver, Peter Hemsch suggests, "We may reach out informally to the former Secretary's staff re: the policy issues raised; just a low-key, friendly heads-up to double-check that they have considered a policy angle." Daris forwarded the email, adding that suggestions should be passed along "reiterating that it is not/not a formal Dept response." Hillary Clinton can get her book, despite disclosing classified material, approved in record time from the same State Department that is slow-walking and obstructing, over years, the release of the notorious Clinton emails about Benghazi and other scandals. The desperate effort to destroy copies of the Clinton draft shows that any remaining drafts need to be uncovered and reviewed. My guess is the American people, the courts, and law enforcement will be angry that yet more Clinton records, which included sensitive and potentially classified information, were destroyed. Washington corruption places our nation at risk and puts your God-given freedoms in jeopardy. You can be proud to be a supporter of a group that stands in the gap to expose and curtail this dangerous corruption.   Until next week... Tom Fitton President