"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Russian and U.S. Defense Officials in Pre-War Deployments

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu yesterday inspected the country's key naval base in the Far East (Ryabachy, on the Kamchatka peninsula), which is the home base of their Pacific submarine fleet, "in preparation for the arrival of new nuclear submarines" next year, according to an official statement of the Defense Ministry, as reported by RIA Novosti.
Russia is preparing for the arrival of new Yasen-class attack and Borey-class strategic nuclear missile submarines. RIA Novosti notes that Ryabachy "had been the Pacific Fleet's primary nuclear submarine base since the Cold War," and that "the buildup of Russia's Pacific Fleet comes as the Obama administration in the US pursues a pivot of military assets toward Asia."
Simultaneously, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus arrived in Spain to "supervise" the arrival at the Rota military base in southern Spain of the USS Donald Cook, an American destroyer outfitted with the Aegis system, which is part of the BMD capability that the U.S. and NATO are deploying across Europe. The Cook arrived in port today, and will be followed by the USS Ross in June, and the USS Porter and the USS Carney in 2015—all of them Aegis-enabled. Mabus met with Spain's Prince Felipe and with Spain's defense minister, in a high-profile, "in-your-face" visit which ignored Russian warnings that they may be forced to pull out of the START treaty as a result of the deployment.
In fact, the coverage of the USS Cook arrival in Cuba's Prensa Latina notes: "The announcement of the destroyer's arrival was rejected by Russian authorities, who threatened to withdraw from the [START] treaty if the US and NATO continue strengthening their missile system." This is the marine part of the deployments for nuclear war, Lyndon LaRouche commented today.

Russian Ambassador to NATO: The BMD Discussions Are "Exhausted," Unless the U.S. and NATO Provide Guarantees

In a timely restatement of long-standing Russian policy on the U.S.-NATO Ballistic Missile Defense system, which is being deployed to encircle Russia and impose their strategic capitulation to the British Monarchy's policies, Russia's ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, told Russia 24 TV channel yesterday:
"We can go around in circles, convene meetings, but if we fail to resolve the fundamental issue of providing reliable legal guarantees of non-direction of the US and NATO missile system against Russian forces of nuclear deterrence, we can expect no improvements" in the BMD discussion.
RIA Novosti reported that Grushko added: "If our partners are not ready to give us this information, then we have no chance to come to an agreement. I do not see any possibility of doing this." Both current President Vladimir Putin and then-President Dmitri Medvedev have stated in no uncertain terms that the unilateral deployment of the U.S.-NATO BMD is strategically unacceptable to Russia, and that they will take necessary countermeasures before the system is fully deployed.

The Daily Journal of the United States Government Notice Exercise of Authority Under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

The Daily Journal of the United States Government

Notice

Exercise of Authority Under Section 212(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

A Notice by the Homeland Security Department and the State Department on 02/05/2014

Action

Notice Of Determination.

Table of Contents Back to Top

Authority: Back to Top

8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i).

Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that the grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided limited material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb), that involves (1) certain routine commercial transactions or certain routine social transactions (i.e., in the satisfaction of certain well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations), (2) certain humanitarian assistance, or (3) substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress, provided, however, that the alien satisfies the relevant agency authority that the alien:

(a) Is seeking a benefit or protection under the INA and has been determined to be otherwise eligible for the benefit or protection;

(b) Has undergone and passed all relevant background and security checks;

(c) Has fully disclosed, in all relevant applications and/or interviews with U.S. government representatives and agents, the nature and circumstances of any material support provided and any other activity or association falling within the scope of section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as well as all contact with a terrorist organization and its members;

(d) Has not provided the material support with any intent or desire to assist any terrorist organization or terrorist activity;

(e) Has not provided material support (1) that the alien knew or reasonably should have known could directly be used to engage in terrorist or violent activity or (2) to any individual who the alien knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit a terrorist activity on behalf of a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II);

(f) Has not provided material support to terrorist activities that he or she knew or reasonably should have known targeted noncombatant persons, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests;

(g) Has not provided material support that the alien knew or reasonably should have known involved providing weapons, ammunition, explosives, or components thereof, or the transportation or concealment of such items;

(h) Has not provided material support in the form of military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code);

(i) Has not engaged in any other terrorist activity, including but not limited to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, as described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) or (II), to which no other exemption applies;

(j) Poses no danger to the safety and security of the United States; and

(k) Warrants an exemption from the relevant inadmissibility provision in the totality of the circumstances.

Implementation of this determination will be made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in consultation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or by U.S. consular officers, as applicable, who shall ascertain, to their satisfaction, and in their discretion, that the particular alien meets each of the criteria set forth above.

This exercise of authority may be revoked as a matter of discretion and without notice at any time with respect to any and all persons subject to it. Any determination made under this exercise of authority as set out above can inform but shall not control a decision regarding any subsequent benefit or protection applications, unless such exercise of authority has been revoked. This exercise of authority shall not be construed to prejudice, in any way, the ability of the U.S. government to commence subsequent criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with U.S. law involving any beneficiary of this exercise of authority (or any other person). This exercise of authority creates no substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.

In accordance with section 212(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(ii), a report on the aliens to whom this exercise of authority is applied, on the basis of case-by-case decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or by the U.S. Department of State, shall be provided to the specified congressional committees not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.

This determination is based on an assessment related to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States as they apply to the particular persons described herein and shall not have any application with respect to other persons or to other provisions of U.S. law.

Jeh Charles Johnson,

Secretary of Homeland Security.

John F. Kerry,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-02357 Filed 2-4-14; 8:

BREAKING: 100% of the 501(c)(4) Groups Audited by IRS Were Conservative

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 8:48 PM

Not a smidgen of corruption?
Today Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, confirmed that 100% of the established 501(c)(4) groups the IRS selected for audit were conservative.
But Obama says their was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.
The Wall Street Journal reported:

A Republican House committee chairman said the Internal Revenue Service targeted tax-exempt conservative groups for audits, widening the scope of GOP ire over the agency’s oversight of political activities.
House Democrats pushed back, saying Republicans were seeking to use the IRS controversy to score political points with their conservative base in an election year.
The IRS has been under scrutiny since an inspector general’s report last May found that the agency had targeted conservative groups for lengthy and heavy-handed review of their applications to become tax-exempt organizations under section 501(c) 4 of the tax code. The controversy led to significant management shakeups at the IRS and generated a slew of congressional investigations, some of which are still going on.
On Tuesday, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) said his committee’s continuing investigation has found that the IRS also singled out established conservative tax-exempt groups for audits.
“We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s,” Mr. Camp said in a statement. “At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.”

Rep. Camp said more about the IRS targeting scandal in his opening statement today.

Additionally, we now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s. At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Tesla’s Coast-To-Coast Supercharger Route Now In Place

Tesla’s Coast-To-Coast Supercharger Route Now In Place

by Jeff Cobb January 28, 2014

Tesla told us a couple weeks ago the coast-to-coast Supercharger network would be coming soon, and as of yesterday it is essentially in place, and the first cross-country Model S trip on this route has already been made.
With 71 SuperChargers throughout the United States, CEO Elon Musk tweeted the status for the still-expanding network – which will be more-easily traveled with the 85-kilowatt-hour Model S than the 60.
“Tesla Supercharger network now energized from New York to LA, both coast + Texas! Approx 80% of US population covered,” Musk tweeted.

Superchargers as of today (1/28/14).

He also tweeted January 26 the he will be traveling the route with family.
“Will be doing the LA-NY family road trip over Spring Break,” Musk tweeted. “Made everyone watch National Lampoon’s Vacation as prep.”
Beating him to a cross-county run were two drivers who made the trek from New York to LA and received a re-tweet by Musk for the accomplishment.

John and Jill; the first drivers to travel Tesla’s cross-country route form New York to Los Angeles.

“Congratulations to John and Jill,” Musk tweeted, “first to drive across US using only free ‪@TeslaMotors Superchargers!”
The trip was also documented in a Tesla forum post presently 19-pages long, and counting.
Although the cross-country route is in place, owners of the 60-kilowatt-hour Model S could find certain legs of the journey not do-able whereas drivers in the 85-kwh Model S will find the trip potentially feasible.

Superchargers “coming soon.”

SuperChargers are Google Map enabled at Tesla’s site and a quick check of the route between, for example, Pennsylvania and Ohio locations reveals a span of nearly 200 miles. Between Kingman, Ariz. and Barstow, Calif., Superchargers are 209 miles apart.
A 60-kwh Model S is EPA rated at 208 miles range and owners would be well advised to carefully plan any traveling.
In other cases where distances are pushing the range limit, even traveling excessively above the speed limit or not carefully pre-conditioning the battery in cold – both of which sap battery range – could see cars not making some legs of the journey.

Superchargers projected (presumably by) end of 2014.

If one goes to Tesla’s Web site and looks to “coming soon” Superchargers (pictured above), the potential to make it gets better, but is not completely assured. Some 60-kwh Model S drivers will still want to check each leg when the “coming soon” stage is reached.
But plans are to keep proliferating the Superchargers to a far greater degree, so eventually, any outstanding concerns will be addressed – for the Model S, and “200-mile” range “Gen 3″ sedan due to follow.

Superchargers projected for 2015.

Posted in Driving Trends
Tagged as coast to coast supercharger, Elon Musk, Homepage Top Featured, Supercharger network, Tesla Superchargers, twitter tesla

MILLER: Obama’s surgeon general nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy is a radical gun grabber

Comment(s)

Size: + / -

| Reprints

By Emily Miller

The Washington Times

Monday, February 10, 2014

Enlarge Photo
Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy, President Barack Obama’s nominee to be the next ... more >

Story Topics

Follow Us On

Facebook

Question of the Day

Will the U.S. win the most gold medals by the end of the 2014 Winter Olympics?

President Obama is using every executive power in his arsenal to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
His latest maneuver is to nominate a rabidly anti-gun doctor to be the next U.S. surgeon general. Dr. Vivek Murthy is facing Senate approval in upcoming weeks.

Dr. Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that advocates for Obamacare and gun control laws.
The group calls gun violence “a public health crisis.” It pushes for Congress to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines and calls for spending tax dollars for more gun-control research.
The organization also lobbies for doctors to be allowed to ask patients, including minors, whether they have legal guns in the home. If the patient admits to having guns, Dr. Murthy wants doctors to “counsel them appropriately about safety measures.”
Gun rights advocates and many families view this policy as a violation of privacy.
At a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander asked Dr. Murthy about public comments on firearms, such as a tweet from before the 2012 president election that said, “Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.”
Mr. Alexander, the ranking Republican on the committee, told Dr. Murthy that “Americans have a First Amendment right to advocate the Second Amendment — or any other amendment. And the Second Amendment is not a special interest group, it’s part of our Constitution.”
The Tennessee senator added that, “If your goal is to make guns the bully pulpit of your advocacy in the surgeon general’s office, that would concern me.”
Dr. Murthy sidestepped the questions about his gun-control agenda from committee members throughout the hearing.
However, Mr. Murthy’s Twitter timeline is chock full of his anti-firearm screed.
“NRA press conference disappointing but predictable - blame everything in the world except guns for the Newtown tragedy. #wakeup,” he wrote in Dec. 2012.
That same month, he tweeted that, his group had “launched doctor-nurse campaign demanding gun safety legislation from Congress.”
His spin on Mr. Obama’s failed effort to pass gun control in the Senate last April was to say: “Signs of progress-we got 20 votes in the senate in favor of gun violence legislation that we wouldn’t have had 1 year ago. Have faith.”
Mr. Obama’s pick for the next “nation’s doctor” is purely political.

Story Continues →
View Entire Story

‹‹ previous12 next ››

About the Author

Emily Miller

Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times. She is the author of “Emily Gets Her Gun … But Obama Wants to Take Yours” (Regnery 2013). Miller won the 2012 Clark Mollenhoff Award for Investigative Reporting from the Institute on Political Journalism.

Latest Stories

Latest Blog Entries

I Didn't Join to Be Sacrificed': U.S. Troops Fed Up with Risky Afghanistan Strategy

by Billy & Karen Vaughn 11 Feb 2014, 6:04 PM PDT post a comment

U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are now forced to fight a two-fronted war. Before each deployment, these soldiers understand fully that day after day they will do battle against relentless terrorists with shifting loyalties and unspeakable hatred. But what none of them could have foreseen was the killing field that would open from their rear: the Continental United States.

Our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), compounded by the failed COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategy—also known as “winning hearts and minds”—has made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.

Our best and brightest come home in body bags as politicians and lawyers dine over white linen tablecloths; writing, modifying, and re-modifying these lethal rules. Rules that favor the enemy rather than the American soldier. Rules so absurd they’re difficult to believe until you hear the same stories over and again from those returning from battle.

In a delicate discussion with an Army Ranger who recently left the military, we heard the following: “I had to get out. I have a family who needs me. I didn’t join to be sacrificed. I joined to fight.”
This decision came shortly after he lost a close friend to the ROE. He explained how the Taliban had attempted an ambush on his friend’s squad but quickly realized they were in a battle they couldn’t win and began retreating. While chasing them, the U.S. soldiers were ordered not to engage due to the slight chance the Taliban had laid down their arms as they ran through some type of shack. While arguing with leadership at the JOC (Joint Operations Center), his friend was shot and killed.

A Navy SEAL who left his job only a few years shy of full retirement said the following: “I got out because I couldn’t take it anymore. We tried to explain how much reckless danger we were being exposed to and they told us we were being illogical.”

This type of response has created a growing crisis of confidence between our warfighters and senior military leadership. His argument wasn’t illogical at all.

A gut-wrenching pattern began forming in early 2009, a pattern completely ignored by Congress, the White House, and apparently the DoD.

In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan (October 2001 – December 2008) we lost 630 U.S. soldiers. In early 2009, this administration authorized the implementation of the COIN strategy. Over the next five years, the U.S. death toll skyrocket to 2,292.

Seventy-three percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have taken place since 2009.

In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan, 2,638 U.S. soldiers were wounded in action. In the next forty-five months (2009 – 2012) an additional 15,036 suffered the same fate.

Liars figure, but figures don’t lie.

While concern over being killed due to these policies weighs heavily on the minds of those we’ve spoken with, the deepest pit in the stomach comes from fear of prosecution should they violate these absurd and ever-changing ROE. The last thing a warfighter should ever be forced to experience is unnecessary fear.

Fear creates hesitation. Hesitation creates flag-draped caskets. Flag-draped caskets create fatherless children, widowed wives, and childless parents. Our heroes deserve the right to fight with swift hands, clear minds, and confident hearts.

However, today’s warfighters have the grave misfortune of serving leaders who elevate the virtues of inaction over action. The message? If you dare use your training or your gut instinct, if you have the fortitude to fight for your life or the desire to kill the enemy, there is a good chance you will be punished.

The physiological capacities of a true patriot cannot tolerate the vile stench of injustice, especially when perpetrated against those who defend us. Its wretched aroma permeates the core and demands a response.

We’re counting on you, the American patriot, for that response. We must defend our defenders. Please, spread the news and demand change.

Billy & Karen Vaughn are Gold Star parents of Special Operations Chief (SEAL) Aaron Vaughn, KIA 6 Aug 2011. Billy is the author of Betrayed: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17. Read more or schedule the Vaughns for a speaking event at http://www.forourson.us.