FAMILIES OF FALLEN SEALS ALLEGEDLY SENT FORM LETTERS WITH PRESIDENT’S ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE

Thirty U.S. service members were killed on August 6, 2011, when a CH-47 Chinook was shot down in Afghanistan’s Wardak province. As Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft reminds us, it is the deadliest single loss of U.S. forces in the Afghanistan campaign.

Among those killed in the crash were 17 members of the U.S. Navy SEALs. And although the deadly attack was over a year ago, it wasn’t until yesterday that, apparently, parents of fallen SEALs revealed that were sent stock letters with President Obama’s electronic signature.

“Yesterday, Karen and Billy Vaughn, parents of Aaron Carson Vaughn, spoke at the Defending the Defenders forum sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots outside the RNC Convention in Tampa. Karen brought a copy of the form letter they were sent following their son’s death,” Hoft reports.

A form letter?

“Karen Vaughn reached out to the parents of the other SEALs killed in that crash,” Hoft adds. “Their letters were all the same. Form letters — signed by an electric pen.”

RNC ATTENDEES REPORTEDLY EJECTED AFTER THROWING FOOD AT BLACK CNN CAMERAWOMAN: ‘THIS IS HOW WE FEED ANIMALS’

A number of reports out of the Republican National Convention last night indicate that two attendees were kicked out for throwing nuts at a black CNN camerawoman, saying: “this is how we feed animals.”

The left-leaning Talking Points Memo added:

The CNN official declined to confirm specific details of the incident to TPM but generally confirmed an account posted on Twitter by former MSNBC and Current anchor David Shuster: “GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying ‘This is how we feed animals.’”

[...]

In a written statement, CNN addressed the matter but divulged few details: “CNN can confirm there was an incident directed at an employee inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum earlier this afternoon. CNN worked with convention officials to address this matter and will have no further comment.”

 GOP convention spokesman Kyle Downey confirmed for Politico: “Two attendees tonight exhibited deplorable behavior. Their conduct was inexcusable and unacceptable. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated.”

Politico also adds that while the actions certainly do not speak for the Republican Party, it can’t help the impression among many African-Americans that Republicans are old, white racists.

“A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 94 percent of African Americans surveyed supported President Obama, versus 0 percent — yes, zero percent — who supported Mitt Romney,” Politico recalled.

However, it should be noted that while the inexcusable event was occurring, a new star was born at the Republican National Convention– black Utah mayor Mia Love.

FAMOUS DRILL INSTRUCTOR SAYS GEICO FIRED HIM FOR CRITICIZING OBAMA ADMIN.

Famous drill instructor Lee Ermey — best known for his appearance in the movie “Full Metal Jacket” — says he was fired from his gig as a GEICO insurance personality because he criticized President Obama.

Last December, Ermey — also known as “Gunney” — made headlines by blasting the economy and linking Obama to socialism.

But the plot thickened in January when Ermey came out and apologized, drawing the ire of some of his fans. And now, despite that apology, Ermey says GEICO fired him because of the statements.

Ermey had played a psychiatrist in a GEICO commercial and famously called his “patient” a “jackwagon.” When TMZ recently asked him about it, he said “GEICO fired me because I had– I wasn’t too kind about speaking with the– about the administration, so– the present administration — so they fired me.”

This isn’t the first time GEICO has canned someone for making political statements. GEICO voiceover man Lance Baxter was fired in April 2010 for leaving a nasty message on the voicemail of Freedomworks wondering if the group was “mentally retarded.”

DNC PROCEEDS WITH 2-HOUR ISLAMIC ‘JUMAH’ PRAYERS (AND YOU WON‘T BELIEVE WHO’S INVITED)

The host committee for the Democratic National Convention is raising a number of eyebrows after choosing to proceed with featuring Islamic “Jumah” prayers for two hours on the Friday of its convention, though Democrats earlier denied a Catholic cardinal’s request to say a prayer at the same event.

Up to 20,000 people are expected to attend the Friday prayers and Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), said the purpose of the event is to hold political parties accountable for the issues faced by Muslim-Americans.

In particular, the event will target the Patriot Act, the NYPD, the National Defense Authorization Act, and anti-Shariah sentiment.

A quick Google search by the DNC would have shown them that Hough and Wahhaj are leaders in the separatist American Islamist movement. While they may be able to get a few thousand Muslims to attend the event, they are NOT going to be mainstream Muslims.  Most will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement.

[...]

Their jummah (group) prayer is…about empowering their Islamist and MB sympathetic groups into the very fabric of the political system so that Americans become anesthetized. We need American Muslims to speak up and marginalize these radicals. The DNC needs to understand and reject them because of their radical history and ideas.

The mosque of Jibril Hough, mentioned by Dr. Jasser, is owned by the North American Islamic Trust, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial as one of the entities “who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

Siraj Wahhaj, the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC, is often considered a “moderate” because he was the first Muslim to give an invocation in the U.S. Congress, but as Robert Spencer notes, he has a number of troubling ties to dangerous radicals.  In the early 1990′s the man reportedly sponsored talks by “the Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and New Jersey mosques, and told his followers that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.”

Wahhaj elaborated, according to bestselling author Brigitte Gabriel, to say: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

He continued: “Take my word.  If 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

When an imam like Siraj Wahhaj says “it his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran…we need to speak up!” Dr. Jasser reiterated in response, adding that Americans “should be concerned” if this is who the DNC is “consorting with.”

Robert Spencer speculates that the Democrat National Committee is simply so “in thrall to multiculturalism” that “few, if any” are even aware of the radical connections.

“To raise any concerns about such a speaker would be ‘Islamophobic,’ violating every rule of the anti-American, anti-Western ethos that prevails among so many Democrats today,” Spencer writes.

He concluded: “There is about as much chance of that as there is of the Democrats ditching Obama and nominating David Horowitz as their candidate for President of the United States.”

*The “Charlotte in 2012” page was established by the city of Charlotte to help coordinate the DNC. It advertises itself as “the official location for all the latest news, information and ways to get involved.” It is also the official website for the host committee. Additionally, all events listed on the site have to go through an approval process.

A NEW AIRPORT SECURITY PROCEDURE YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT

That answer was not good enough for Mr. Gunn. He made it quite clear to the woman performing the TSA “Chat-Down.”

• He was an American citizen
• He was traveling within his own country
• He was not breaking any laws
• That was all the government needed to know and he was not going to share any information

And that’s when the agent loudly announced to her superiors (and everyone else standing in line): “We have another refusal here!”

By shouting that line, the woman triggered a response from supervisors and other agents in the area.

Another TSA staffer detained Mr. Gunn and took his carry-on bag. When he asked why he was being “detained,” the TSA rep denied detaining Gunn.  Steve Gunn did say that his detention lasted all of two minutes, but it was a detention. He was stopped, held against his will and checked quite differently than all of the other passengers in line.

The manner in which he was treated by TSA agents bothered Mr. Gunn and he told TheBlaze that he felt like a suspect and decided to speak loudly so the people in line could hear him. As his bag was being examined and his hands swabbed by the agent, Gun said, “This is America, not Russia… we shouldn’t have to answer these questions!”

Gunn said that another TSA agent stopped his work and replied: “It’s no different than customs.”

Gunn told the interjecting TSA agent that his Customs comparison is wrong. People coming into the country should be screened in a more serious manner than citizens moving about inside our borders.

After he landed in Grand Rapids and arrived at his home (I did not ask him exactly where he lived), Gunn researched the TSA’s “pilot program” that involves quizzing passengers as they stand in line. He discovered a USA Today opinion piece that details the program. It’s not exactly a new thing and the results are also less than spectacular. Gunn’s article recapped the USA Today story:

TSA officials interviewed about 725,000 travelers at Logan International Airport in Boston over the course of one year, and none of them turned out to be terrorists. A small percentage were arrested on outstanding warrants for other crimes.

Steve Gunn believes that he may have been singled out for the questioning because he suffers from a partial and temporary facial paralysis due to a recent bought with Bell’s palsy. Gunn wonders if all stroke victims and people with facial tics will be pulled aside and quizzed.

During our interview, Gunn stressed that he understands the need to make certain air travel is safe. However, his objection was raised over the curious and invasive search tactics used in this new “chat-down” program.

“They can make us all take off our shoes and our belts and treat us as suspects,” he said. “But at least in that case, they treat everyone equally.”

JUDGE COULD ORDER FORT HOOD SHOOTER TO BE ‘FORCIBLY SHAVED’ BEFORE TRIAL — BUT SHOULD HE?

Hasan has grown a beard to express his Muslim faith. His defense attorneys have said he won‘t shave since he’s had a premonition that his death is imminent, and he doesn’t want to die without a beard because he believes not having one is a sin.

Hasan faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted in the November 2009 attack on the Texas Army post that killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen others.

Gross has banned Hasan from courtroom hearings since he first showed up in court in June with a beard, letting him watch the proceedings on a closed-circuit television in a nearby room. But Gross said Hasan will be forcibly shaved before the trial if he doesn’t shave himself. The judge has said he wants Hasan in attendance during the court-martial to prevent a possible appeal on the issue if he is convicted.

Gross‘ response also told the appeals court that his order does not violate Hasan’s religious freedoms. Army rules prohibit beards, and those who join the military have agreed to give up certain personal interests over the needs of the service to maintain good order, discipline and security, according to the document.

In urging the court to deny Hasan’s appeal and to allow the trial to proceed, Gross’ response said that his order to forcibly shave Hasan ensures “that a military trial proceeds without a distracting and disruptive sideshow featuring an officer-accused flagrantly disrespecting the Army, his superiors, and the military judge.”

The trial is expected to last more than two months at Fort Hood, about 125 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

August 2012: Entertainment Litigation Update

Quirk v. Sony Pictures: On July 5, 2012, a federal court in California denied Sony Pictures’s motion to dismiss writer Joe Quirk’s beach of implied contract claim relating to the upcoming film, Premium Rush. Quirk v. Sony Pictures Entm’t Inc., No. C 11-3773 RS (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2012). Quirk alleged that Premium Rush is derived from his 1998 novel, Ultimate Rush, and that Sony breached an implied contract to compensate him for the use of his material. Although the court noted that Quirk’s theory of liability stretches California’s law of idea theft to its “breaking point” (id. at 6), Quirk’s claim was found to meet the low “facially plausible” standard required to survive a motion to dismiss.

Notably, Quirk failed to allege that Sony received a copy of Ultimate Rush directly from him or his agents. Instead, Quirk theorized that a copy of his novel “passed through one or more routes between those to whom his agent directly submitted the novel” and Sony. This distinction is important because, while there is significant precedent for implied contract claims when an author submits a literary work directly to a producer on the implied condition that the producer will pay if it uses the work, see, e.g., Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal. 2d 715 (1956), there is no previous authority to support such an implied contract without direct contact.

The court explicitly stated that its decision to deny the motion was a “close call” and it applied an extremely fact-specific analysis. Nonetheless, the fact that Quirk’s claims were allowed to proceed may impact the landscape of implied contract and idea theft cases in California.

FCC v. CBS: Eight years after the 2004 Super Bowl’s infamous halftime “wardrobe malfunction,” the legal battle between the FCC and CBS has finally concluded. In response to the musical halftime performance, which included 9/16ths of a second of nudity broadcast to 90 million viewers, the FCC fined CBS $550,000—the largest fine ever levied against a broadcaster. On June 29, 2012, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Third Circuit’s decision reversing the fine, thereby making the Third Circuit’s ruling the final word.

In CBS Corp. v. FCC, 663 F.3d 122, 151 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit held that the FCC’s fine was arbitrary and capricious, relying on the FCC’s previous treatment of “fleeting words”:

[T]he balance of the evidence weighs heavily against the FCC’s contention that its restrained enforcement policy for fleeting material extended only to fleeting words and not to fleeting images. As detailed, the Commission’s entire regulatory scheme treated broadcasted images and words interchangeably for purposes of determining indecency. Therefore, it follows that the Commission’s exception for fleeting material under that regulatory scheme likewise treated images and words alike.

Although the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Chief Justice Roberts issued a concurrence indicating that future FCC fines may not be treated in the same way because the FCC has clarified its rules on fleeting images and words since the 2004 Super Bowl:

[T]he FCC no longer adheres to the fleeting expletive policy. It is now clear that the brevity of an indecent broadcast—be it word or image—cannot immunize it from FCC censure. See, e.g., In re Young Broadcasting of San Francisco, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 1751 (2004) (censuring a broadcast despite the “fleeting” nature of the nudity involved). Any future “wardrobe malfunctions” will not be protected on the ground relied on by the court below.

Federal Commc’ns Comm’n v. CBS Corp., 567 U.S. __ (2012) (Roberts, C. J., concurring).

Dish Network v. ABC: On July 9, 2012, a federal district court in New York dismissed Dish Network’s copyright and contract claims against Twentieth Century Fox and its copyright claims against CBS and NBC, based on improper venue. Dish Network, LLC v. ABC, No. 12 Civ. 4155 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2012). Dish’s claims stem from its “Auto Hop” feature, also known as an “ad zapper,” which allows Dish subscribers to skip over commercials on programs saved to their DVRs. Venue had been at issue in the case since Dish filed a lawsuit in New York the same day that Fox and other television networks filed in California.

The court ruled these claims would best be litigated in California. Rejecting Dish’s argument that it had won the race to the courthouse, the court found that Dish’s New York lawsuit “was motivated by a fear of imminent legal action by the networks and was, thus, improperly anticipatory.” Dish had filed suit in New York on May 24, just hours before the television networks filed suit in Los Angeles and less than 24 hours after a Hollywood Reporter article “conveyed the unmistakable impression that a legal showdown was inevitable.”

However, the court allowed Dish’s contract claims against CBS and NBC to remain in New York because those networks have yet to assert contract claims in California. In addition, because ABC has not yet filed suit against Dish, Dish’s claims against ABC will remain in New York for the time being.

Bankruptcy Process: You are in Their World Now

Bankruptcy is a powerful financial tool.  Think about it…it can eliminate years of debts, interest, penalties, all within the few months that it takes to process the typical chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The elimination of your debts comes through the Discharge Order that is issued by the judge in your case.  In order to obtain adischarge of your debts you have to jump through all the necessary hoops and play by the the rules as outlined in the Bankruptcy Code.  If you do that, you will be successful.

If you don’t, you could open yourself up to some real harm.  In many – if not most- other areas of the law there is a lot of back and forth and negotiation by the parties to reach a resolution.  In bankruptcy, while there is some gray area, generally it is more of a rule-based system that requires strict adherence.  What it comes down to is by filing for bankruptcy you will get the benefit of the powerful bankruptcy discharge, in return, the bankruptcy expects you to follow the rules.

Here are a couple of examples:

Disclosure of Assets and Debts

This is a big one.  You will be required to disclose all debts and all of your assets.  All of them. Period.  I help clients through this process and we are as thorough as possible.  Don’t ask your attorney if you can conceal assets or the question “how will the court know?”  Everything must be disclosed.  If you conceal an asset it could end up costing you your discharge or even worse could be prosecuted as a felony.

Letting your bankruptcy lawyer know what your debts and assets are upfront will allow you and your attorney to put together a solid plan that will help your bankruptcy proceed as smoothly as possible.

 Cooperation with the Bankruptcy Trustee

In all chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy cases a trustee will be assigned to review your bankruptcy documents and to administer your case.  As part of this process your trustee may request additional documents like tax returns or bank statements.  You must cooperate with the trustee and provide the requested documents.  On occasion there may be a request that is out of bounds, but that is why you hired a bankruptcy lawyer – to help you in processing these requests and understanding your rights.

In general though, you will be required to cooperate with the trustee.  Again, failing to do so will definitely cause you grief and in extreme cases could cost you your discharge.

Just because you are in bankruptcy does not mean that you don’t have any say or rights in the process but it is important to understand that there are laws and rules that you must comply with if you want to obtain a discharge of your debts.  The real value of hiring a bankruptcy lawyer is having someone there to guide you through this process and help you navigate the rules.

If you start the bankruptcy process with the understanding that there are rules and you will expected to play by these rules, your bankruptcy will proceed very smoothly.

OBAMA LOSING JEWISH SUPPORT IN KEY SWING STATE — BUT WHY NOW?

Florida is home to one of the largest Jewish demographics in the United States. In fact, the Sunshine State falls behind only New York, California, and of course, Israel, when it comes to the world’s Jewish population centers.

What’s more, Jews overwhelmingly vote Democratic — and more so than any other demographic to date — even though liberalism seems, at first glance, incompatible with Jewish ideals and values.

To illustrate just how strong Jewish support for Democrats is, take into account that Obama, arguably the least Israel-friendly U.S. president to date, garnered a staggering 78 percent of the Jewish vote. Not even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who many view as liberal, could capture the hearts and minds of most Jewish voters. But recent polling data in the key swing state could suggest trouble — at least a modicum of it — is on the horizon for Obama where his Jewish support is concerned.

According to the Boston Globe, Jewish political activists and demographers posit that the president could lose anywhere from 3 to low-double-digits percentage points in the upcoming election. While this number may not seem significant, the Jews constitute a roughly 4 percent of the state’s population yet typically account for between 5 and 6 percent of voters in Florida.

Obama has, since the beginning, opposed what he refers to as “settlements” in Judea and Samaria, he has had an arguably contentious relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has proven ineffective in showing that the U.S. will do all it can to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions and also announced to the world that Israel should return to its “1967 borders” (when no such borders in fact exist). So what could be the cause for this somewhat significant dip in Jewish support?

Israel Hayom political columnist Richard Baehr told TheBlaze that while there might not be room for excitement just yet, he is certain Republicans will do better among Jews this election, both “nationally and in Florida.” He reminded that Florida, because its Jewish population is older and comprises a higher percentage of women, will still do worse than a state like New York, for instance, that has a higher Orthodox and Russian-Jewish percentage. This is likely why Anthony Weiner’s seat turned GOP when he stepped down.

“There is clear concern on Obama’s side about diminished Jewish support,” Baehr said. “I think 30 percent is a reasonable target for our side in Florida and nationally.”

Indeed, “a small shift in the Jewish vote can make a difference,” Ira Sheskin, a University of Miami professor and director of its Jewish Demography Project told the Globe.

PAUL RYAN’S 78-YEAR-OLD MOM JOINS HIM ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL FOR MEDICARE TALK

THE VILLAGES, Fla. (The Blaze/AP) — Paul Ryan, a champion of changing Medicare, spoke as a passionate defender Saturday, promising seniors that he and Mitt Romney would save it, and he introduced his mother to voters to drive home the point that the health program “was there for our family” and “we have to keep that guarantee.”

The vice presidential hopeful tried to strike a careful balance on a dicey subject in his speech at a sprawling retirement community. The Republican ticket has come under withering criticism from President Barack Obama for Ryan’s proposals in Congress to overhaul Medicare. Ryan says Medicare will be protected for people in and near retirement, and he wants to see younger generations offered alternatives to the entitlement.

“She planned her retirement around this promise,” Ryan said. “That’s a promise we have to keep.”

“It’s not just a program,” he added. “It’s what my mom relies on.”

He accused Obama of undermining Medicare by cutting billions from the program to devote to expanded coverage under his health care law, and asserted: “We want this debate. We need this debate. And we are going to win this debate.

Older Americans have often resisted changes in Medicare, the federal health care insurance program for people 65 and older, and for the disabled.

The Romney-Ryan ticket is betting that voters‘ worries about federal deficits and the Democrats’ health care overhaul have opened the door for a robust debate on the solvency of Medicare, one of the government’s most popular and costliest programs.

In the week since Romney announced Ryan as his running mate, Medicare and Social Security have appeared as a driving issue. Florida, Pennsylvania and Iowa are among the top five states in the percentage of people 65 and over, and all three are closely contested this election.

THE NEXT BIN LADEN RAID: WILL SEAL TEAM SIX STRIKE CHAPO GUZMAN IN MEXICO?

The conflict in the Middle East is winding down, U.S. forces are withdrawing, and wars are being handed over to various proxy forces to fight in the context of the so-called Arab Spring from Egypt, to Libya, to Syria. Once Syria falls, more than likely after the U.S. presidential elections are complete, the Arab Spring with U.S. covert assistance will almost certainly shift its focus to the gem of Eurasia, Iran.  But that is another story.

Meanwhile, the policy makers and official white papers are talking about a strategic pivot, a realignment of U.S. forces to confront a real or perceived growing of Chinese spheres of influence in the Pacific Rim. This has already begun in earnest with China feuding with the Philippines and several South East Asian nations regarding territory disputes, mostly related to islands in the South China Sea. Another realignment of U.S. military and intelligence assets is to the Southern Cone, Central and South America.

The third realignment is to turn the surveillance and intelligence gathering techniques and tactics developed for the War on Terror inward for domestic use, mostly under the banner of cyber-security. The defense establishment will not simply let contracts expire and shrink their margins, rather they will seek out new venues to apply the same methods of operation.

The second realignment involves various Unmanned Aerial Vehicles being reoriented into the Southern Hemisphere, but there are also a number of rumors that just don’t want to die. Has the Asymmetrical Warfare Group been south of the border to study cartel tactics, techniques, and procedures?  Are Spanish-speaking SEAL Team Six operators working with FES, Mexico’s Maritime Commando equivalent?  Many attribute the Mexican Marines, and other military forces recent successes in capturing high value targets to close cooperation and assistance from American military and intelligence sources, much of which was hashed out as a part of the Mérida Initiative.

All of this happens in the background of the so-called Fast and Furious scandal in which the ATF first ordered American gun shop owners to sell guns to straw buyers, and then intentionally allowed them to be smuggled across the border into the hands of cartel sicarios, or assassins.  The excuse given by ATF and the Justice Department was that the weapons were allowed to “walk” across the border so that law enforcement officials could track them to the recipients and use the information to make arrests. This excuse is just that, a pathetic cover story for what actually happened.  Why was no effort made to Tag, Track, and Locate the smuggled weapons?

The Sinaloa cartel is the oldest cartel in Mexico, with the deepest institution ties. This is a nice way of saying that the cartel cuts checks to government employees on both sides of the border. This cartel has been waging a war against their rivals and the idea that America is interested in managing the war on drugs rather than ending it is an old one. To that end, has the Sinaloa cartel been receiving covert assistance to help them wipe out their rivals and consolidate the drug trade under one organization?

Answers are not forthcoming, however some leaked information shows that CISEN, the Mexican Intelligence service along with American agencies may have their cross hairs on the Sinaloa cartel, whether or not they have actually been allied with them in the past.  According to leaked StratFor e-mails stolen by the hacker group called Anonymous and subsequently released by Wikileaks, we have an interesting account about a CISEN agent meeting with American officials at the El Paso intelligence center described by Wikipedia as “a federal tactical operational intelligence center…hosted at Fort Bliss. Its DoD (United States Department of Defense) counterpart, Joint Task Force North, is at Biggs Army Airfield. Biggs Field, a military airport located at Fort Bliss, is designated a military power projection platform.”

The Mexican counter-part to the El Paso intelligence center is more than likely the Office of Bi-National Intelligence in the business district of Mexico City, alleged to house the DEA, CIA, FBI, and CISEN under one roof where they receive direction from NORTHCOM, perhaps with National Security Council involvement.

In one of the StratFor e-mails, a Mexican diplomat identified as Fernando de la Mora writes, “Information about US military involvement in Mexico is provided only as a need to know basis. The Americans have been adamant about this, and we agree even more. Therefore, I can confirm that there is Marine presence, but I don’t know if it is MFR [Marine Force Recon].”

Take it for what it may or may not be worth, but I think this non-military diplomat may be confusing Force Recon with a certain Naval Special Warfare unit. To clarify, Force Recon still exists as a part of the Marine Corp and goes out to sea with the Navy to provide a Direct Action capability for the fleet they sail with as Navy SEALs no longer provide this function on any regular basis.

Additionally, Borderland Beat reports that according to well placed military sources, the Pentagon has drafted a plan to capture Chapo Guzman that reflects the same template used for the Osama Bin Laden raid.  According to this report, SEAL Team Six would insert via helicopter into the mountains of Sinaloa where Guzman is believed to be in hiding.  Like with the Bin Laden raid, this would be a “kill” rather than a “capture” mission, the entire affair watched over by NORTHCOM in real-time transmission from UAV’s flying over the objective area.

A raid of this nature with American SOF taking point makes sense as six previous attempts to capture Guzman by the Mexican military have failed, generally thought due to leaks and tip-offs to the enemy. However, Americans operating unilaterally inside Mexico would be a clear violation of the Mexican constitution and would set off a political firestorm due to a past history of “yankee imperialism.” To this end, the American operators may disguise themselves as Mexican commandos and quickly hand Guzman’s body off to Mexican authorities, allowing them to claim credit for the killing.

According to Brandon Webb’s contact, “There have been units operating in south America for some time now but the SEALs doing this (by themselves) does not add up and I’ve heard nothing on this.”  This statement is probably correct, the proposed Guzman raid, is just that, a proposal for a contingency plan. This does not mean that troops and assets have been committed to this military action at this time.

When taken together, this information makes it clear that if the Guzman raid is authorized like the Bin Laden raid, there will be safeguards in place to make sure Guzman comes back in a body bag. The reasons are not tactical but rather strategic in the political sense. Osama Bin Laden could never be put on the stand during a trail, the things he would have had to say about America’s support for the mujahedeen during the 1980′s alone would have been a massive embarrassment.  Enough so that it would call into question American foreign policy decisions going back decades and right up to the present, especially taken in the context of U.S. training and material support for the Syrian and Libyan rebels as well as the Iranian MEK terrorist group.

If Guzman were allowed to take the stand in a U.S. courtroom, what would he have to tell us about the covert support he received?  What would he have to tell us about the Fast and Furious scandal?  This is a rhetorical question of course because such a thing will never be allowed to happen.

TEAM OBAMA OFFERS ROMNEY A DEAL: RELEASE 5 YEARS OF TAX RETURNS AND WE’LL (KIND OF) DROP IT

Barack Obama’s re-election campaign kept up pressure against Republican rival Mitt Romney on Friday, challenging the former Massachusetts governor to release at least five years of tax returns.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina made the tax-disclosure challenge to Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades in a letter Friday morning. Messina said he was taking the step because Romney “apparently fears the more he offers, the more our campaign will demand that he provide.”

To provide these five years, the Governor would have to release only three more sets of returns in addition to the 2010 return he has released and the 2011 return he has pledged to provide. And, I repeat, the Governor and his campaign can expect in return that we will refrain from questioning whether he has released enough or pressing for more.

AN NYPD OFFICER SHOOTING AN AGGRESSIVE PIT BULL ON THE STREET WILL SHOCK YOU

If you have a pet of your own, this video will be hard to watch. But wait to pass judgment until you hear all the details.

What are those details? Apparently there was a man having a seizure on the ground, shaking and twitching as passers by watched in horror. However, no one could help the man during his medical emergency because the man’s dog — a pit bull — was being quite protective. In fact, in the video you’re about to see, the dog can even be seen lashing out at one lady who gets to close, biting her pants leg.

Johnny Rodriguez, who was visiting the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary nearby, said he and three other people alerted nearby police officers that the owner of the dog was in danger of being hit by traffic. “He was having a seizure, I saw him lying down on the ground and his head was twitching and shaking.” The two officers who responded called for backup (”I guess they didn’t have the training or something”) and the dog began growling as officers approached the man.

After that, the dog then runs at one of the officers nearby. In a split second, the officer pulls his gun and fires a single shot that sends the dog writhing in pain. The dog eventually stops moving as a pool of blood is visible.

But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. The Local East Village, an offshoot of the New York Times, says the dog — named “Star” — has a history of violence:

Brandon Verna, a homeless man acquainted with the owner of the dog, identified by police as Lech Stankiewicz, said that the pit bull has a reputation for being overly protective of her master.

“Most of us figured out that when he’s passed out, whether he’s overdosing or not, leave him alone,” Mr. Verna said. “If he’s going to die, call an ambulance and have them deal with it because no one wants to get bitten.”

A police source said that a video of the encounter leaves no question that the officers acted properly.

 “She was super protective of her owner,” Ms. McSweeney said. “The dog has bitten multiple people that we know just because they were near him while he was sleeping.” [Emphasis added]

Miraculously the dog survived and is apparently in stable condition. But a police spokesperson told The Local East Village the prognosis doesn’t look good.

As for the owner, The Local has identified him as Lech Stankiewicz, a 29-year-old with a history of drug and alcohol problems. In fact, The Local says he was actually arrested after the incident for an open warrant related to an open container violation.

And despite the details surrounding the shooting, that didn’t stop McSweeney from taking it in an odd Occupy Wall Street-like direction.

“She’s bitten a bunch of our friends,” she said of the dog. “But now the first time it bites a yuppie, they shoot it? It shows that they’re not really there to protect and serve. They just protect and serve the rich.”

NEW SCATHING VIDEO SHOWS FORMER MILITARY & MEMBERS OF THE INTEL COMMUNITY UNITING TO STOP LEAKS

A group of former Navy SEALs, members of Delta Force, the Marines, Army Special Forces and the intelligence community have joined together and are standing up, demanding that America’s political leaders immediately stop leaking sensitive military information.

In the documentary-style video, ten former members of the military and intelligence community (including one General) speak candidly and clearly on the importance of Operational Security or OPSEC. The film shows the men detailing their outrage over multiple leaks of sensitive and valuable information from this administration.

Their mission is one of education. OPSEC is a 501(c)(4) – a social welfare organization. They strive to teach the elected officials in Washington and the American people about the vital need to keep secret so much of the work being done by our military.

“Politics should never come before national security.”

According to the group, the biggest problems started on May 2nd of 2011 after the killing of Osama bin Laden. OPSEC maintains that the rush to announce the success of the raid on Bin Laden’s compound compromised the men involved, their families, and also diminished the value of the materials gathered during the mission.

“Tactics, techniques, and the location were revealed… we even knew the name of the dog on the raid.”

 OPSEC also claims that just days after the raid, Hollywood was invited to the White House for a briefing on the mission. The former military men believe that officials told too much to the filmmakers, compromising ongoing and future missions by detailing just how our system works.

From the grandstanding on the death of bin Laden, to the leaked information that the U.S. and Israel worked together on the STUXNET virus that temporarily shut down Iran’s nuclear operations, OPSEC believes we have a serious problem that must be addressed now.

Starting in June, and following a spate of intelligence leaks out of Washington DC, considerable media attention was focused on this administration’s use of strategic and sensitive military intelligence for political gain.

On June 6th, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said:

“I have been on the Intelligence Committee for 11 years and I can tell you, I have never seen it worse than this.”

Senator John McCain accused the “highest levels of the White House” of leaking sensitive information that jeopardized years or intelligence work.

Of course the White House has denied any involvement in the leaks. The President himself made a strong denial on June 8th, saying that it was “offensive” and “wrong” to say that the White House was involved in the leaks.

Since the President’s public denial:

• Two special prosecutors were appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder.
• Mike Baker, a former CIA operative appeared on the Don Imus radio show to express his concerns and frustrations over the leaks.

And Senator Feinstein again made a statement that initially seemed a belief that the leaks came from someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Speaking at a forum in late July, Feinstein said that she “think[s] the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.”

Although the Senator did state that she did not believe the leaks came from the President, she thought the White House was involved before she decided that they were not involved.

One member of OPSEC, Navy SEAL Benjamin Smith spoke with TheBlaze and stressed that this group is not “swift boating” anyone. Their mission is to educate the American people while reminding our elected officials of the crucial importance of protecting the vital military intelligence information we have gathered as well as the individuals (and their families) who have dedicated their lives to protecting and defending the United States of America. In fact, their official Mission Statement from the group’s website reads:

STOP the politicians, President Obama and others, from politically capitalizing on US national security operations and secrets!

EDUCATE the public on the importance and necessity of Operational Security in today’s environment.

To Do Nothing is not an option as that allows the special operations and intelligence capabilities to be degraded, and paraded around like a show dog…ACTION IS REQUIRED NOW!

“Dishonorable Disclosures” will be shown at events in key states across the country over the next several months, including Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada. 

REP. ISSA ANNOUNCES HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WILL SUE ERIC HOLDER

“We are filing charges against Attorney General Eric Holder tomorrow.”

Those words, sent in a Tweet at 8:40 PM yesterday by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, signal what may become the first serious existential legal challenge to an Obama administration official yet filed. It also marks a very clear escalation in Issa‘s investigation of the Justice Department’s “Operation Fast and Furious,” a gunwalking operation in Mexico that led to the death of over 200 people, including Border Agent Brian Terry.

Since the news of that operation broke, Issa‘s Oversight Committee has been engaged in a bureaucratic knife fight with the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, commanded by Attorney General Eric Holder, over certain documents related to the scandal. While the Justice Department has turned over thousands of pages relating to gunwalking during both of the previous Presidential administrations, a few key missing pieces remain, such as a set of documents that may explain how as many as 2000 guns fell into the hands of Mexican Drug Cartels. Holder has defied the House’s subpoenas for these documents repeatedly, racking up Congressional contempt citations both at the civil and criminal levels, all the while steadily defending his role in the scandal.

Issa has, understandably, refused to take Holder’s word, given the latter’s dogged unwillingness to have the documents related to the scandal disclosed, even in the face of an enforceable subpoena. The fight has further escalated since President Barack Obama made the decision to back Holder up, citing Executive Privilege, turning this into a drag-out fight between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

All that means the resolution of the problem depends on the third, Judicial branch of government. Hence Issa’s Tweet, which moves this battle from the halls of Congress and the White House into the arena of a Federal Court, where Holder will either be compelled to turn over the documents Issa is demanding, or be let off the hook by a judge.

However, there is a complication. It’s not clear that judges have the power to force the Executive Branch to surrender such documents to Congress. The reason is quite simply that there is no legal precedent that can guide a judge’s hand on this point. The closest thing to a precedent is a District of Columbia District Court’s ruling during the last years of President George W. Bush’s administration that the House could force certain Executive Branch officials to testify. This, however, does not necessarily imply the ability of the House to force the release of any and all documents or information on the part of the Executive Branch.

Aside from the legal problems, this decision on the part of the House could easily become a talking point in the Presidential race for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan, the presumptive nominees on the Republican ticket. And in the event that Issa gets the documents he wants, that talking point has the potential to become a much larger issue, especially given President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege. The issue has, to this point, remained under the radar in the Presidential election. Time will tell if that can remain the case once Issa’s lawsuit is filed.