Thursday, February 27, 2014

CPR Media Network
For those of you who were listening to the debut of the Right Side Patriots radio show on CPR Worldwide Media this afternoon, you may well think there was a melt-down/failure at the top of the second hour. However, we at CPR define it as a success.

Here’s what happened. Right after a segment where Diane and Craig went off on islam, with Diane being spot on in her assessment that we are indeed at war with islam, and with Craig via his customary sarcasm suggesting having sanitation workers checking the 'burqa-bags' at the airport, the technical difficulties started until the cyber signal was lost altogether. 

CPR Worldwide Media has been continuously monitored for quite some time now by different islamic groups originating out of Europe and the UK. In fact, last week the CPR broadcast coming from London was hacked into while on the air, and taken down by an islamic center located in Germany. And now, immediately after they started talking about islam and what they called the burqa 'garbage bags’ they also started experiencing technical difficulties that got worse with each passing minute.

Over these past hours CPR has been running traces and such, and it has been confirmed by the server technicians at CPR, as well as CPR CEO Michael Collins-Windsor, that their show was also hacked into and that the route trace went back to the Islamic Center of England located in London.

However, what those who hacked into the server didn’t know was that their show was also being recorded on an entirely different server for rebroadcast. As a result, the Right Side Patriots debut show from Wednesday, February 26th…without interruption...will be rebroadcast in its entirety as soon as possible throughout the upcoming week.

This is what happens when the TRUTH is what will Right Side Patriots do about this attack on them...they will come back next week with enhanced cyber security to once again speak the truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING but the truth on the CPR Worldwide Media Network.

We here at CPR hope you will tune in and listen to the debut show of Right Side Patriots as soon as we announce its rebroadcasting times here at

This is one show you do NOT want to miss.
WASHINGTON -- National Security Advisor Susan Rice appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday and said that when she had appeared on several news outlets back in September 2012 to state that the attack on an American diplomatic installation in Benghazi was a "spontaneous reaction" to an American-made film that appeared on YouTube she had used "the best information we [the White House] had at the time." Senator John McCain responded to her statement Sunday that it left him "almost speechless."

The Arizona Republican said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "I'm almost speechless, because it's patently obvious, first of all, that Susan Rice had no reason to be on the program. She had no involvement in it [Benghazi]." At the time she was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "Second of all, she read talking points that we are now beginning to believe came from the White House, which were absolutely false," continued Senator McCain. "We now know that the CIA station chief on the ground sent a message immediately saying, 'Not-slash-not spontaneous demonstrations,' and of course the information was totally misleading, totally false."

Well, apparently the White House -- bolstered by a December 2013 investigative piece by the New York Times -- is still at it, energetically deceiving the American people about the origins of the attack in Benghazi and its very nature. Actually, the attack was undertaken by al-Qaida-related terrorists. It was a very professional job. A former SEAL called in to assess the terrorists' mortar attacks -- in which two retired SEALs were killed along with two other Americans, one of whom was our ambassador -- has verified the attackers' professionalism. Moreover, Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya, informed the press shortly after the attack that he and everyone else in the Libyan mission believed it was a terrorist attack "from the get-go."

So there should be no doubt about the character of the assault on Benghazi. It was professional, and the Jan. 15, 2014 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence asserts that for months, intelligence reports were coming in indicating that security in the area should have been beefed up.

The Obama administration did the opposite. One has to wonder why? Why has not the administration been charged with negligence?

Jed Babbin and I recently conducted our own investigation of Benghazi. We found still more discrepancies in the record. Senator McCain and his colleagues will find our report on our website,

The night of the Benghazi attack a security team based in Tripoli consisting of seven men -- at least two of them Delta Force operators -- was ordered to Benghazi. After delays they arrived between 4:30 and 5: 15 in the morning. A former SEAL with knowledge of the situation told us that the security team inflicted a large number of casualties on the attackers. It was during this attack that mortar fire took the lives of two every brave men, former SEALs Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who were on the annex roof defending it. One of the Delta Force operators, Master Sgt. David Halbruner, received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in the fight. Another, rumored to be a Marine, may have received the Navy Cross. Both honors are second only to the Medal of Honor.

There is more. One of the survivors of the attack was apparently injured so seriously that he was still receiving medical assistance at the National Military Medical Center near Washington as late as December 2013. Possibly he is still there. This wounded warrior, and the others who fought so bravely that night, have yet to testify before Congress. Before Susan Rice pops off again, we should hear from them. Right, Senator McCain?
In the months since Edward Snowden revealed the nature and extent of the spying that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been perpetrating upon Americans and foreigners, some of the NSA's most troublesome behavior has not been a part of the public debate. This behavior constitutes the government's assaults on the American legal system. Those assaults have been conducted thus far on two fronts, one of which is aimed at lawyers who represent foreign entities here in America, and the other is aimed at lawyers who represent criminal defendants against whom evidence has been obtained unlawfully and presented in court untruthfully.

Investigative reporters at The New York Times recently discovered that the NSA has been listening to the telephone conversations between lawyers at a highly regarded Chicago law firm and their clients in Indonesia. The firm, Mayer Brown, has remained publicly silent about the revelations, as has its client, the government of Indonesia. But it is well known that Mayer Brown represents the government of Indonesia concerning trade regulations that govern exports of cigarettes and shrimp to the U.S. The lawyers on the other side of the bargaining table from Mayer Brown work for the federal government, which also employs, of course, the NSA.

Can the NSA lawfully tell lawyers for the government who are negotiating with Mayer Brown lawyers what it overheard between the Mayer Brown lawyers and their client? The answer, incredibly, is: Yes. Federal rules prohibit the NSA from sharing knowledge with lawyers for the federal government only about persons who have been indicted. In this case, Mayer Brown is attempting to negotiate favorable trade relations between Indonesia and the U.S., and the lawyers for the U.S. have the unfair advantage of knowing in advance the needs, negotiating positions and strategy of their adversaries. In the Obama years, this is how the feds work: secretly, unfairly and in utter derogation of the attorney-client privilege.

For 100 years, that privilege -- the right of lawyers and their clients to speak freely and without the knowledge of the government or their adversaries -- has been respected in the U.S., until now. Now, we have a lawyer who, as president, uses the NSA to give him advance warning of what his office visitors are about to ask him. And now we have lawyers for the federal government who work for the president and can know of their adversaries' most intimate client communications.

This is profoundly unfair, as it gives one side a microscope on the plans of the other. It is unwise, too, as clients will be reluctant to open up to counsel when they know that the NSA could spill the beans to the other side. In the adversarial context, for the system to work fairly and effectively, it is vital that clients be free to speak with their lawyers without the slightest fear of government intrusion, particularly when the government is on the other side of the deal or the case.

If you have spoken to a lawyer recently and if that lawyer is dealing with the federal government on your behalf, you can thank the constitutional scholar in the Oval Office for destroying the formerly privileged nature of your conversations.

But that is not the only legal protection that President Obama has destroyed. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case in which journalists in the pre-Snowden era challenged the government's spying on them. The government won the case largely because it persuaded the court that the journalists did not have standing to bring the lawsuit because, the court ruled, their fears of being spied upon were only hypothetical: They suspected that their communications with their sources were being monitored, but they couldn't prove it. In this post-Snowden era, we now know that the journalists in that case were being spied upon.

Nevertheless, during the oral argument in that case, government lawyers told the high court that should government prosecutors acquire from the NSA evidence of criminal behavior against anyone whom they eventually would prosecute and should they wish to use that evidence in the prosecution, the Justice Department would inform defense counsel of the true source of the evidence so that the defendant would have the ability to challenge the evidence.

Yet, last week, in a case in federal court in Oregon, the same Justice Department that told the highest court in the land last year that it would dutifully and truthfully reveal its sources of evidence -- as case law requires and even when the source is an NSA wiretap -- told a federal district court judge that it had no need or intention of doing so. If this practice of using NSA wiretaps as the original source of evidence in criminal cases and keeping that information from the defendants against whom it is used is permitted, we will have yet another loss of liberty.

Federal law requires that criminal prosecutions be commenced after articulable suspicion about the crime and the defendant. Prosecutions cannot be commenced by roving through intelligence data obtained through extra-constitutional means. That is the moral equivalent of throwing a dart at a dart board that contains the names of potential defendants and prosecuting the person whose name the dart hits.

For the past 75 years, federal prosecutors have not been permitted to use unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal cases, and they have been required to state truthfully the sources of their evidence so that its lawfulness can be tested. This rule generally has served to keep law enforcement from breaking the laws it has sworn to uphold by denying to its agents the fruits of their own unlawful activity.

Liberty is rarely lost overnight. It is lost slowly and in the name of safety. In the name of keeping us safe, the feds have spied on the lawyers who negotiate with them, lied to the lawyers whose clients they are prosecuting and misrepresented their behavior to the Supreme Court. As far as the public record reveals, they have not corrected that misrepresentation. They have done all of this in utter defiance of well-settled law and procedures and constitutional safeguards.

What will they do next?

Special congressional panel to investigate FBI contact with bin Laden

Probe prompted by Washington Times report

The existence of the FBI mole and his dealings with bin Laden were omitted from the official investigations into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but were disclosed in an exclusive report Wednesday morning in The Washington Times.

The Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI, said the panel would take a close look at what came of the human source that the FBI’s Los Angeles field office cultivated in 1993. The source’s contributions, which included helping thwart a terrorist plot in Los Angeles, were never mentioned in the more than 500-page official report published in 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

In an interview with The Times on Wednesday evening, Mr. Wolf said the details surrounding the source represent “exactly the type of activity” that the newly established panel will examine.

The panel, which is also being dubbed a “commission,” was created in late January under language Mr. Wolf crafted for Congress‘ 2013 omnibus appropriations bill that President Obama ultimately signed into law.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Ambassador Tim Roemer, who also served in Congress, and longtime national security analyst and Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman have been appointed to serve on the commission, which also is tasked with probing the success and failure with which the FBI “is addressing the evolving threat of terrorism today.”

“I cannot think of three more qualified individuals to serve on the commission,” Mr. Wolf said in a Jan. 27 statement announcing the panel. “They are all men of integrity and have significant credibility and expertise on counterterrorism policy.”

At the time, Mr. Meese said it “is imperative that as we move further away from the 9/11 attacks, we make sure the bureau is evolving to address the ever-changing threat from al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.”

It’s a point that seems all the more pertinent in light of the revelations in The Times report, which homed in on testimony that Edward J. Curran, a former top official in the FBI’s Los Angeles office, gave in a little-noticed employment dispute case involving a counterterrorism agent at the bureau.

As the case played out in federal court in 2010, Mr. Curran testified that the FBI had placed a human source in direct contact with bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance a terrorist attack in the United States.

The information the FBI gleaned back then was so specific that it helped thwart a terrorist plot against a Masonic lodge in Los Angeles, the court records reviewed by The Times show.

“It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Mr. Curran told the court in support of the discrimination lawsuit filed against the bureau by his former agent, Bassem Youssef.

Mr. Curran gave the testimony in an essentially empty courtroom, and thus it escaped notice from the media or terrorism specialists. The Times was recently alerted to the existence of the testimony while working on a broader report about al Qaeda’s origins.

Members of the Sept. 11 commission, congressional intelligence committees and terrorism analysts told The Times they are floored that the information is just now emerging publicly and that it raises questions about what else Americans might not have been told about the origins of al Qaeda and its early interest in attacking the United States.

The 9/11 Commission report broadly outlines how, during the early 1990s, bin Laden was seeking to expand al Qaeda globally — an effort that included “building alliances extended into the United States,” and that “the Blind Sheikh, whom bin Laden admired, was also in the network.”

But the report downplays the notion that bin Laden was actively plotting or seeking to finance any specific attacks inside the United States as far back as 1993 — two pieces of information that, according to Mr. Curran’s testimony and contemporaneous documents, the FBI’s Los Angeles field office corroborated at the time.

Alternatively, the report outlines how all of the attacks pursued by bin Laden during that period were against U.S. assets outside the United States.

With regard to the one attack inside the U.S. — the first World Trade Center bombing — the report says “bin Laden involvement is at best cloudy.”

It remains to be seen whether the newly created commission might uncover information that will change that assessment.

Mr. Wolf told The Times on Wednesday evening that the commission’s members will present findings to the Appropriations Committee in late March.

It is not the first time that Mr. Wolf has pushed for deeper insight into the evolution of al Qaeda and its relationship with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

In 1998, he authored language that resulted in the creation of the National Commission on Terrorism, also known as the Bremer Commission. That panel’s final report, released in 2000 just months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, highlighted the threat from bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Mr. Wolf reflected Wednesday on the chilling irony surrounding that report, the cover of which had a picture of the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York.

He said the goal for the new “commission is to look at everything, so we don’t make a mistake and let something happen that could be prevented.”

Appeals court orders Google to remove Muhammad video that Obama blamed for Benghazi jihad murders

/ Jihad Watch
innocence-of-muslimsCindy Lee Garcia is perfectly within her rights to object to appearing in a movie that apparently was quite different from the one she was led to believe was being filmed. Nonetheless, with Obama wanting the video down in order to appease Muslims, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation wanting it down as part of its campaign to make the West enforce Sharia blasphemy laws, this is not a positive development: it plays into the hands of the enemies of the freedom of speech, who are many and are growing more powerful all the time.

“Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube,” by Jonathan Stempel and Dan Levine for Reuters, February 26 (thanks to Twostellas):
(Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.
By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected Google’s assertion that the removal of the film “Innocence of Muslims,” amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”
Representatives for Google could not immediately be reached for comment.
Cris Armenta, a lawyer for Garcia, said she is delighted with the decision.
“Ordering YouTube and Google to take down the film was the right thing to do,” Armenta said in an email. “The propaganda film differs so radically from anything that Ms. Garcia could have imagined when the director told her that she was being cast in the innocent adventure film.”
The controversial film, billed as a film trailer, depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a fool and a sexual deviant. It sparked a torrent of anti-American unrest among Muslims in Egypt, Libya and other countries in 2012.
That outbreak coincided with an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. U.S. and other foreign embassies were also stormed in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous.
Google had refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others, though it blocked the trailer in Egypt, Libya and certain other countries.
Garcia had claimed that her performance within the film was independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright. A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube.
But in Wednesday’s decision, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim and having already faced “serious threats against her life,” faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.
He called it a rare and troubling case, given how Garcia had been duped. “It’s disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights,” he wrote.
The case Garcia vs. Google Inc et al., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-57302.