Monday, June 26, 2017

San bernardino

by -
San Bernardino Phones

John McAfee has some time on his hands.

The founder of McAfee anti-virus software is running for president and seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination . . . while offering to crack Apple’s iphone encryption for the FBI.

The public dispute between Apple and the FBI has been growing as a court has ordered the mobile device company to give the FBI access to the phones, but Apple says they are asking for a “back door.”

Apple’s view is backed by decades-long battles for control by the government.

Going back to the Clinton years, the administration was willing to drop its monopoly pursuit against Microsoft for keys to the Windows operating system.

The FBI’s case is muddled for those familiar with hacking iPhones. A backup of an iPhone’s content can easily be created and accessed through third party software.

This will give the government access to messages, phone logs, photos and other “native” content.

However, any data associated with third-party applications will not be accessible. So if the San Bernardino terrorists used apps like Snapchat, or other messaging apps, the FBI would be out of luck in getting their hands on those connections and transcripts.

But John McAfee, says he can break the encryption, free of charge to the government, within three weeks.

Why would the fading millionaire make such an offer? For the media of course.

Speaking on Neil Cavuto’s Fox Business show, John McAfee said that if could not break the encryption, “I would eat my show.”

It’s unlikely the FBI would hand the device over to McAfee, who was on the run from Bolivian authorities just a few years ago. But the media tactic is working for McAfee, with his offer trending on Facebook for the past several days.

by -
muslim rights

In the aftermath of the San Bernardino terrorist attacks the Obama administration has issued a new warning regarding workplace discrimination “against individuals who are, or perceived to be, Muslim or Middle Eastern.”

American businesses are to accommodate the religious needs of Muslims and assure that they aren’t being harassed or intimidated, states the order which was issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the bloated federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws. Those who don’t oblige will be prosecuted by the administration for violating federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Right Act which prohibits discrimination on the bases of religion.

“The attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, in late 2015 and other recent world events have heightened concerns about workplace protections for all employees, including individuals who are, or are perceived to be, Muslim or Middle Eastern,” the EEOC asserts in its recently issued document. “Discrimination in the workplace based on religion, national origin, or race is strictly prohibited by federal and state laws. Reactions in the workplace to world events demand increased efforts by employers to prevent discrimination.” EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang refers to Muslims as “vulnerable communities” that need protection “even as we grapple with the concerns raised by the recent terrorist attacks.”

In the last few years the administration has sued a number of U.S. businesses for violating Muslim civil rights under Title VII, including companies in Nebraska, California and Colorado for not accommodating prayer breaks and forbidding Islamically-mandated headscarves (hijabs) on the job. Just a few months ago the EEOC helped two Muslim truck drivers working for an American company in the U.S. get hefty settlements after being fired for refusing to transport alcohol because it violates their religious beliefs. American taxpayers pick up the tab for all this litigation, which is conducted in federal courts throughout the nation.

Though the effort to protect Muslim rights in the American workforce was launched the day Obama became commander-in-chief, the administration drove home the point after the San Bernardino massacre by two Islamic terrorists. The new warning urges employers and employees to be particularly mindful of instances of harassment, intimidation or discrimination against Muslims and reminds businesses that accommodations for Muslim workers don’t just include time off for religious holidays but also “exceptions to dress and grooming codes.” Even if a situation does not amount to illegal harassment under federal law, the mandate asks employers to intervene in order to protect Muslim rights.

The document includes two attachments, in question-and-answer format, with hypothetical instances of discrimination. The first is geared towards employers and features two fictitious characters, Aliyyah and Susan, that encountered prejudice for their “religious attire.” An assistant manager at the store where Aliyyah applied to be a cashier believed her religious attire would make customers uncomfortable and Susan’s hijab violated an office dress code. Both instances constitute civil rights violations, according to the EEOC. The employer section also includes hypotheticals involving an Arab American named Muhammad and a Muslim named John who are harassed by colleagues about their religion.

The portion aimed at employees makes similar points with an added flare of drama. In that version the woman wearing the hijab was offered a bakery job over the phone but the manager appeared “startled” by her appearance and hired someone else. “In your situation, it appears that you were sent home because the employer had a negative reaction to your hijab, which you wear for religious reasons,” the new EEOC document asserts. A genderless Muslim character also complains about a coworker seeking “long discussions about Islam, ISIS and terrorism.” It’s possible the employer may not be helpful or might not see it as a problem at all, the EEOC concludes, encouraging Muslims that find themselves in these situations to file discrimination charges with the agency “at any time.”

by -
FBI Sued

With the region—and the entire nation—still reeling from the San Bernardino terrorist attacks, a federal appellate court is considering whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should be punished for surveilling Muslims in a nearby southern California county.

The case centers around a federal surveillance program that focused on the Islamic Center of Irvine, situated just 55 miles from the recent massacre in San Bernardino.

A leftist civil rights group and a terrorist front group, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), sued the federal government for violating Muslims’ civil rights by indiscriminately targeting them for surveillance. The lawsuit was filed in 2011 and alleges that during a two-year period the FBI collected extensive records about the religious practices of hundreds of Muslims who attended various southern California mosques. The records include video and audio recordings of prayers, discussion groups and religious lectures as well as social and cultural events, according to the complaint.

In 2012 a federal court dismissed most of the lawsuit against the FBI because the judge agreed with the government that matters vital to national security would be disclosed if it went forward. Before ruling, the judge, Cormac J. Carney, reviewed classified information that was not made public.

Attorneys representing the Muslims vowed to hold the FBI responsible for surveilling their community and abusing their constitutional rights. In a statement, they blasted the government for invoking state secrets privilege to dismiss the FBI’s “unlawful infiltration of mainstream mosques in southern California.” Muslim Americans were targeted for surveillance because of their religion, the lawyers assert.

Now, just weeks after the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 was executed in nearby San Bernardino, a federal appeals court is considering the case. This month the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Pasadena, California which is situated in Los Angeles County about halfway between Irvine, which is in Orange County, and the site of this month’s attack in San Bernardino County.

The proceedings lasted a little over an hour. One of the appellate court judges, Marsha Berzon, expressed doubts to Justice Department attorneys about the government’s state secret defense. The creed bans litigation that could unmask information involving national security. “I just am having real trouble seeing where the line is drawn in this very difficult situation we are in now,” Judge Berzon said.

It could be months before the court rules but the case could not have been revived at a worse time, especially in a venue so close to a recent attack by Islamic jihadists. Even a prominent and notoriously liberal federal lawmaker who represents the area, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, has publicly admitted that a significant minority of Muslims support terrorism to establish an Islamic caliphate. Sanchez, who sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security and the House Armed Services Committee, is running for U.S Senate to replace veteran Democrat Barbara Boxer.

After the San Bernardino attacks she said that “there is a small group–and we don’t know how big that is, it can be anywhere between five and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to–that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible, and in particular go after what they consider Western norms, our way of life. They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world.

They want to put their way on everybody in the world. And, again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they’re certainly, they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use, and they do use, terrorism. And it is in the name of a very wrong way of looking at Islam.”

by -

According to a recent survey from Harvard University, more than half of millennials support the use of ground troops against ISIS after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.

But there’s a catch: they don’t actually want to fight themselves.

Despite 60% of millennials–a generation that, roughly speaking, is made up of those born between 1980 and 2000–who want to see the U.S. military take a more active role, a whopping 85% of the same people also said they wouldn’t join the military themselves.

The survey, which was first taken between October 30 and November 9, initially found that 47% of millennials wanted to invade ISIS.

But, after the attacks on Paris, questions were asked again–leading to the skyrocketing number of young people who feel that we should invade ISIS.

So long as other people are doing the actual fighting, of course.

With the draft having been eliminated in the 1970s, as the controversy of the Vietnam War began to dissolve, young people have grown up in a world where military service has always been completely voluntary.

And, considering many of their parents also came of age in a world where they also weren’t expected to serve in the military, the tradition of serving in the military is, often, considered a relic of the past.

But, as the world becomes progressively more dangerous in a world dominated by China, Russia, and Islamic extremism, it’s clear that it’s going to take a lot more than 15% of America’s young people who feel like they have the need to serve their country in the long run.

by -

Keeping his promise to attack the gun rights of law-abiding Americans in the wake of the Islamic terrorist attack that killed 14 people attending a Christmas party in San Bernardino last week, President Barack Obama is moving to ban 47,000 people whose name appears on the No-Fly List from buying guns, owning ammunition or even keeping their firearms.

The president’s opening gambit to redefine what a “prohibited person” is under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) follows his Sunday address to the nation on domestic terrorism – a move that would not have stopped Islamic terrorists in California from committing their crimes.

If Obama uses an Executive Order to expand the “prohibited person” definition used by NICS to approve gun sales – a power he does not have under federal law – and is not stopped by Congress or the courts, people ranging from U.S. Marines and Congressmen to journalists and even federal air marshals could be stripped of their firearms. In his Sunday address, the president said:

“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a No-Fly List is able to buy a gun.” “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to but a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

What the president doesn’t seem to understand is that the law is the law. The No-Fly List – which is secret, riddled with errors and makes it difficult to appeal the decision to add them to the list – was created to protect the flying public from terrorist attacks, not to strip people of their gun rights.

In fact, according to a piece on the No-Fly List published in The Washington Post:

“Thousands of people have been mistakenly linked to names on terror watch lists when they crossed the border, boarded commercial airliners or were stopped for traffic violations…”

“When questions arose about tens of thousands of names between December 2003 and January 2006, the names were sent back to the agencies that put them on the lists, the GAO said. Half of those were found to be misidentified…”

Security experts, civil libertarians and consumer critics charge that the federal list process contains many errors and relies on an overly broad standard of reasonable suspicion.

One famous example involved the late Senator Ted Kennedy, an ardent advocate of gun control in Congress, who was added to the No-Fly List in error. Under the standard Obama wants to implement, Sen. Kennedy would be barred from purchasing a firearm. At the time, Kennedy asked then-Homeland Security undersecretary Asa Hutchinson:

“If they have that kind of difficulty with a member of Congress, how in the world are average Americans – who are getting caught up in this thing – how are they going to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”

Another example occurred just last year when Fox News contributor Steve Hayes was listed in the federal terrorist database after he traveled to Istanbul for a cruise.

“When I went online to check in with Southwest, they wouldn’t let me. I figured it was some glitch,” he said. “Then I got to the airport and went to check in. The woman had a concerned look on her face.

She brought over her supervisor and a few other people. Then they shut down the lane I was in, took me to the side, told me I was a selectee and scrawled [something] on my ticket.”

Hayes was later informed by Southwest Airlines that his name appeared on the government’s terrorist watch list.

In what is perhaps one the most bizarre examples of No-Fly List errors involved members of the Federal Air Marshal Service. Air Marshalls said they were blocked from boarding planes in 2008 after their names appeared in the database. One marshal told the Washington Times that it was “a major problem, where guys are denied boarding by the airline.”

“In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the airline employees were adamant they would not fly,” said the air marshal, who requested anonymity due to the nature of his job. “I’ve seen guys actually being denied boarding.”

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., commenting after the president’s address told CNN on Sunday that most people on the No-Fly List don’t even belong there:

“These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism. … The majority of people on the No-Fly List are often times people that just basically have the same name as somebody else who doesn’t belong on the No-Fly List.”

If President Obama gets his way, the government will be able to target individual Americans and take away their Second Amendment gun rights by adding their names to the No-Fly List. Once your name appears on the list, federal law enforcement could show up at your home and confiscate any firearms you may own.

While the president plan would only strip 47,000 people of their gun rights, it could just be the beginning. In time, soldiers retiring from active duty after deployment overseas, people being treated for stress or anxiety and other classes of people deemed ineligible to own firearms by politicians will follow – the Second Amendment be damned.

by -

Cable news networks on Friday officially jumped the shark on offensiveness: they broadcasted live from inside the apartment of the San Bernardino terrorists.

Both MSNBC and CNN reportedly paid off the landlord to gain access to the apartment of Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the couple behind the terrorist attacks than left 12 dead at an office holiday party.

Journalists led viewers around a tour of the small apartment—including the room of Farook and Malik’s 6-month-old baby.

They also rooted through the couple’s personal belongings—holding up Malik’s prayer beads, family photos of children, and the couple’s driver’s licenses and social security card.

The FBI warrant that closed the apartment off as a crime scene reportedly had expired, and while agents were out getting the warrant extended, the landlord seemed to have decided to pop in with some of his new reporter friends. Because of the intrusion, any evidence still in the apartment would no longer be legally admissible if it revealed co-conspirators or access to a greater terrorist network.

Even news anchors—who were watching their colleagues go through a terrorist couple’s personal belongings for the sake of ratings—seemed appalled by what was going on.

At one point, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell asked her field reporter to stop holding up personal photos of innocent children, who obviously played no role in the attack.

On CNN, CNN’s law enforcement expert Harry Hock expressed surprise that reporters would go inside, but put the blame of law enforcement for not securing the scene while they waited for another warrant:

“Usually in an instance like this, if a crime scene goes in and does the work and comes out, you will keep that scene locked up, and with the sign on board saying that you cannot come in until the police release it. The fact is, maybe they did not do that here. I am I will tell you, I’m so shocked I cannot believe it. This is detective 101 for crying out loud.”

“And now we have what looks like dozens of people in there totally destroying a crime scene, which is still vital in this investigation,” he added.

Join in the discussion below.

Trending: Obama Hires Former Hamas Terrorist As ISIS Advisor

by -
syed farook

After Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, there’s still a lot of questions—but here’s what we know (and what police have released to the public) already:

14 people have been killed at the Inland Regional Center, a nonprofit that works with people with developmental disabilities. The shooting happened during their Christmas party.

Both suspects fled the scene, but were killed in a shootout.

Police have confirmed that there were two shooters: Syed Farook, 28, and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, 27. A third person was suspected of being part of the crime, but was ultimately deemed to be uninvolved.

Farook attended the Christmas party at the Inland Regional Center, but left early after becoming angry.

Farook was described as a “very religious” Muslim—and he’s become dramatically more religious in the past two years. A neighbor described Farook like this: “He was quiet but always polite. Maybe two years ago he became more religious. He grew a beard and started to wear religious clothing. The long shirt that’s like a dress and the cap on his head.”

Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia—a country that churns out radical Islamic terrorists. He came back with Malik, who he met online. Farouk was an American citizen, Malik was not.

Farook had worked for the state government, and occasionally would have business at the Inland Regional Center, where the tragedy occurred. Though, at one point, he threatened to shoot up the place after getting into a fight with a coworker, it’s uncertain whether or not this was workplace violence or a terrorist attack.

However, it looks increasingly like terrorism: Farook and Malik were well-armed, set booby traps in their home, and wore tactical gear.

Democrats are already politicizing the tragedy. Obama, in an interview on Wednesday night, said there are more “steps we can take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently.” Hillary Clinton called for increased background checks.

by -
San Bernardino Shooting

Location: Orange Show Road / Waterman Avenue

8:48 UPDATE – All suspects have been caught. Suspected terrorism.

7:20 UPDATE – One suspect remains at large

6:58 UPDATE – No officers have been injured.

6:48 UPDATE – Reports of a possible fourth suspect being surrounded by police

6:46 UPDATE – Swat are preparing for possible explosive device in the suspects’ vehicle

6:31 UPDATE – Suspect in vehicle is still breathing and holding a rifle.

6:28 UPDATE – At least one suspect has been killed.

6:22 UPDATE – Swat vehicles are surrounding the suspects vehicle. The number of victims remains at 14.

6:19 UPDATE – Reports of an officer being down.

6:13 UPDATE – Two suspects still in the vehicle.

6:13 UPDATE – At least one suspect has been hit.

6:10 UPDATE – Shots fired from vehicle being chased.

6:04 UPDATE – Possible suspect being chased

5:11 UPDATE – Reports of hostages are false. 5:07 UPDATE – Police currently have no credible description of the suspects. They were possibly wearing masks.

5:04 UPDATE – Police have not recovered any weapons.

4:58 UPDATE – Police have confirmed 14 dead and another 14 injured. They have not determined a motive for the shooting.

4:20 UPDATE – Police are entering the Waterman Discount Mall. No gunshots reported.

4:17 UPDATE – Reports about a Middle Eastern man near the Waterman Discount Mall wearing camouflage. 4:15 UPDATE – Possible suspect.

4:12 UPDATE – Police still looking for up to three suspects in black SUV. 3:46 UPDATE – Two possible suspects have been apprehended in the area. 3 more on the run in a black SUV. 3:35 UPDATE – Family is directed to the Hernandez Center, Third and Sierra. 3:30 UPDATE – Report of 3 Middle Eastern or Hispanic Men with tactical vests. Just after 11:00am in San Bernadino California, the Fire department tweeted that there was an active shooter.

In the hour since the tweet we have learned that over 20 people have been killed and the shooter is still active.

There are reports of finding a room full of bodies and the police are setting up a triage center at nearby fire station, but very little has been confirmed.

What we are sure of at this moment is that over 12 people have been killed with many others injured and the shooter is still active.

Police have asked news helicopters not to film activity due to an impending breach.

Check back with Liberty News Now for more information as we get it.


Guarding Republicans

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives...