LATEST: FBI probe of Petraeus triggered by email threats from biographer, officials say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 By Sari Horwitz and Greg Miller,

The Washington Post Company 

The collapse of the impressive career of CIA Director David H. Petraeus was triggered when a woman with whom he was having an affair sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to him, according to three senior law enforcement officials with know­ledge of the episode.

The recipient of the e-mails was so frightened that she went to the FBI for protection and help tracking down the sender, according to the officials. The FBI investigation traced the threats to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and a Petraeus biographer, and uncovered explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus, the officials said.

When Petraeus’s name surfaced, FBI investigators were concerned that the CIA director’s personal e-mail account had been hacked and that national security had been threatened. The officials said further investigation, including FBI interviews with Broadwell and Petraeus, led to the discovery that the two were engaged in an affair.

The identity of the woman who received the e-mails was not disclosed, and the nature of her relationship with Petraeus is unknown. The officials said the woman did not work at the CIA and was not Petraeus’s wife, Holly. The law enforcement officials said the e-mails indicated that Broadwell perceived the other woman as a threat to her relationship with Petraeus.

Attempts to reach Broadwell and her relatives have been unsuccessful, and she has not made a public statement since she was linked with Petraeus on Friday.

All three senior officials who described the impetus for the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity because aspects of the inquiry are ongoing.

Petraeus, a retired four-star Army general who was once seen as a potential presidential candidate, said Friday that he was resigning as CIA chief because he had been involved in an extramarital affair. He has been married for 38 years and has two grown children, though he said in his resignation statement to CIA

In an e-mail sent to a longtime friend Friday night, Petraeus expressed regret for letting down his family and the nation. The friend, who described the contents of the e-mail on the condition of anonymity, said Petraeus conveyed profound remorse in the message.

“He was deeply sorry for the pain he has caused his family,” the friend said. “He also noted how much he loved his job at the agency. He said he really relished the intellectual challenge there.”

Other details emerged Saturday indicating that the Petraeus allegations became a secret election-night drama for the Obama administration. That evening, the Justice Department informed the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., that their investigation had unearthed compromising information about the CIA director, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.

Clapper then spoke with Petraeus and urged him to resign, notifying the White House the next day. That sequence has become a source of controversy, raising questions among some members of Congress about why key intelligence committees were not notified earlier and why the FBI waited before informing the administration about a probe that had stumbled onto embarrassing details about the CIA chief.

The law enforcement officials did not provide an exact timeline for the investigation, but they said the inquiry started several months ago. They said investigators thought they were dealing with a routine harassment case until some communications were traced to a private e-mail account belonging to Petraeus.

The sexually explicit nature of the communications caused investigators to suspect that someone had broken into Petraeus’s e-mail account, leading to concerns about potential national security breaches, according to the officials. As the investigation proceeded and more evidence emerged, including Broadwell’s role, FBI investigators realized they had uncovered an affair between Petraeus and Broadwell, the officials said.

The e-mails from Broadwell indicated that she thought the other woman was becoming involved with Petraeus, according to the officials. They said the e-mails were “threatening and harassing” but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges.

One of the officials said that the recipient of the e-mails complained to Petraeus about them and that the FBI later obtained e-mails between Petraeus and Broadwell in which they discussed the harassment. The investigators first interviewed Petraeus about two weeks ago, the officials said. They reviewed the evidence with him but did not suggest that he should resign or that he would be charged with a crime, according to the officials.

One of the officials said Justice Department officials were unclear on what steps to take after they concluded that there would be no charges against the CIA director or Broadwell and that there had been no breach of national security.

“What was our responsibility?” said one of the officials. “We were in an area where we’d never been before.”

The notification finally came Tuesday evening, while polls were still open across the country in an election that would return President Obama to office for four more years.

“Director Clapper learned of the situation from the FBI on Tuesday evening around 5 p.m.,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said. “In subsequent conversations with Director Petraeus, Director Clapper advised Director Petraeus to resign.”

The official declined to say whether Petraeus had considered resigning at that point, but he said it was quickly clear to Clapper that stepping down was “the right thing to do.”

The official said that Clapper has been fully briefed on the FBI investigation and has not called for his office or the CIA to conduct a follow-up probe or damage assessment — indicating that Clapper does not see the case as a security threat.

“There are no investigations beyond” that initiated by the FBI, the intelligence official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. The official would not address why the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and others were not notified earlier of the FBI investigation and its link to Petraeus.

The emerging details suggest that Petraeus was not involved in the decision to notify the White House that he had been ensnared in an FBI probe.

Instead, it was Clapper who told the White House late Wednesday, with Obama learning about it a day later. A senior administration official defended the decision not to notify the president earlier, saying that staff “needed to get their arms around” the matter before briefing Obama, who had returned from his election trip to Chicago on Wednesday night.

Obama summoned Petraeus to the White House on Thursday and “made the decision alone overnight” to accept his CIA director’s resignation, the official said.

“Petraeus was pretty clear in his intent to resign,” the official said. He “wasn’t looking to be talked out of it.” Friday morning, Obama notified his senior staff, then made two calls, first to Petraeus and then to the man now serving as acting CIA director, Michael J. Morell.

Still, the timing of Petraeus’s departure, and the apparent decision by the FBI to withhold information about its probe, is already coming under question and criticism from Capitol Hill.

No-nonsense Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) says Petraeus will testify voluntarily or be subpoenaed.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 10, 2012




Trey Gowdy sworn in by Speaker John Boehner

On Friday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News' Greta van Susteren that General David Petraeus will either testify on the Benghazi attack voluntarily or be subpoenaed.

“The fact that he’s resigned and had an affair has nothing to do with whether or not he’s gonna be subpoenaed to Congress,” he said. "I hope we don’t have to subpoena a four star general and a former CIA director. I would hope he would come voluntarily but if he won’t he will be subpoenaed."


 Petraeus was slated to testify next Thursday at closed congressional hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees. Acting CIA Director Michael Morell is expected to take his place, but Gowdy says that Petraeus' testimony is vital, and his resignation is irrelevant.

Video: Rep. Gowdy: Either Petraeus will come before congressional committee or he will be subpoenaed

"He’s either a witness in our case in chief or he’s gonna be a rebuttal witness if Susan Rice and others blame him for their failure of intelligence and failure of information. But there is no way we can get to the bottom of Benghazi without David Petraeus,” he said.

“While he might not be around next week because he’s got personal matters, the week after that and the week after that, this excuse will run stale.”

Petraeus announced his resignation Friday, citing an extramarital affair.According to Fox News, the affair was discovered by the FBI during an investigation into a much broader case.

"Fox News has learned that during the course of this investigation, the name of biographer Paula Broadwell came up. The FBI followed that lead and in doing so, uncovered his affair with her. The FBI for some time was concerned that perhaps Petraeus was some sort of victim, but there has been no evidence discovered to back up such concerns," Fox reported Friday.

The sudden announcement caused many to question the timing of the resignation, coming just days after Obama's re-election victory.

Petraeus affair may balloon into scary scandal involving U.S. security, and Obama secrets

By Verne Strickland   November 10, 2012

I’m not any closer to the centers of power than you are. I can only say I read a lot, write everyday – mostly about politics, government, wars and rumors of wars – and I have a nagging curiosity about why good people go bad. How the lure of power, adulation, hero worship, sex, money, possessions, or raw adventure lead leaders to do things totally contrary to their nature. 

It is not unknown in the annals of spies and espionage for a high-ranking military or intelligence official to be “targeted” by a facilitator who lures the individual into a compromising situation, then threatens blackmail unless certain classified information is presented. In this case, former CIA Director Petraeus would certainly qualify as the mother lode of top-secret U.S. information, plans, capabilities, agents and double agents. 

Those close to him say it would be hard to find anyone in Washington more ardently admired than CIA Director David Petraeus – West Point graduate, story-book career, former four-star general of the war in Iraq  and Afghanistan, friend and adviser to presidents, highly-decorated, twice-wounded combat veteran, known for his calm, steady bearing and sense of honor. Add to that his reputation as a family man, married for 37 years to his wife, two grown children. An outstanding American in every sense of the word.

But David Petraeus, it turns out, is a totally unknown quantity.  And possibly a dangerous one.

 I am certain this will be revealed soon, unless President Obama has so much to hide that he will stop any investigation by whatever means he deems necessary. Of course, this follows on the heels of the convoluted Binghazi affair, which for weeks has languished in mystery as Obama remains silent about what he knew, what he didn’t know, and when.

CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday after admitting to an extramarital affair -- an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, that was revealed over the course of an FBI investigation, The FBI had been investigating an unrelated and much broader case before stumbling on the affair.

Fox News has learned that during the course of this investigation, the name of biographer Paula Broadwell came up. The FBI followed that lead and in doing so, uncovered his affair with her. The FBI for some time was concerned that perhaps Petraeus was some sort of victim, but there has been no evidence discovered to back up such concerns. Broadwell co-wrote Petraeus' biography, "All In."

Broadwell could easily be just a convenient “cooperator” – a distraction cooked up by the Administration to avoid having to explain a more troublesome plot.

Petraeus met with President Obama on Thursday before submitting his letter of resignation, which the president accepted.  In a message to staff, Petraeus said he asked "to be allowed" to step down.

The Petraeus adventure, it should be clear, is very suspicious, and worth not only a closer look but a full-blown investigation.

As for how the affair came to light, the Congressional official said that “it was portrayed to us that the F.B.I. was investigating something else and came upon him. My impression is that the F.B.I. stumbled across this.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not inform the Senate and House Intelligence Committees about the inquiry until this week, according to Congressional officials, who noted that by law the panels — and especially their chairmen and ranking members — are supposed to be told about significant developments in the intelligence arena. The Senate committee plans to pursue the question of why it was not told, one official said.

The revelation of a secret inquiry into the head of the nation’s premier spy agency raised urgent questions about Mr. Petraeus’s 14-month tenure at the C.I.A. and the decision by Mr. Obama to elevate him to head the agency after leading the country’s war effort in Afghanistan. White House officials said they did not know about the affair until this week, when Mr. Petraeus informed them.

Mr. Petraeus’s admission and resignation represent a remarkable fall from grace for one of the most prominent figures in America’s modern military and intelligence community, a commander who helped lead the nation’s wartime activities in the decade after the Sept. 11 attacks and was credited with turning around the failing war effort in Iraq.

Many wonder if the Petraeus "resignation" is really about Paula Broadwell, the biographer conveniently attached to the CIA director, or something more incriminating to himself... or President Obama.

“I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair.  Such behavior is unacceptable," said Petraeus, who has "resigned" mere days after the presidential election.

Adultery in Washington, DC is hardly a titillating subject today, so to use it as an excuse for quitting an illustrious military career is seen as a lame attempt at a slighly-distracting sex scandal. 

If Petraeus were a CIA agent in the field, however, a sexual affair with a lover such as Paula Broadwell could have been compromising to the agency.

A mystery wrapped in an enigma. This is what our re-elected leader presents to us mere hours beyond his acknowledgement of “the will of the people”.

The cobweb that obscures the President and his intentions, and possibly nefarious activities, is just beginning to unravel, and Obama’s crown, once shiny and new, is becoming tarnished and ugly. Even one with a genius for deploying smokescreens, which Obama has proven that he has, can masquerade only so long. 

At any rate, it has to make us all extremely uncomfortable to see one nasty surprise after another emerge into public view regarding Mr. Obama. I am not only surprised, but fearful of what the next revelations may bring.

The truth, I think, will very soon introduce to us the man some of us have entrusted with a second chance. I am not one of the guilty!

Gun ban back on Obama's agenda. U.N. arms treaty revived.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 9, 2012

 By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Washington Times

Thursday, November 8, 2012



That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama’s re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations‘ previously comatose treaty regulating guns.

Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement.

Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn’t become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected.

The administration line is that the treaty applies only to firearms exports and poses no threat to domestic gun owners. “We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” an administration official said. “We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms.”

It is hard to take the White House response seriously. The treaty instructs countries to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” The agreement’s language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment. Treaty backers also want to insert provisions forcing ratifying states to promote a variety of fashionable left-wing causes including “sustainable development,” even though they have nothing to do with the arms trade.

Though the treaty is supposed to be about “gun exports,” its provisions can still be applied domestically. Activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation could see to that. The definition of international commerce could follow the same expansive logic liberal courts have used to redefine “interstate commerce.” Anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control.

A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might some day be exported, and those capable of being exported. If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of “international” trade, even if the item never leaves our shores.

In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic. With the election out of the way, the White House can move swiftly to get the treaty through the U.N. General Assembly and up to the Senate by the summer of 2013. Elections have consequences.

Unfamiliar territory leads McIntyre, Rouzer to recount in NC/7.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 8, 2012




By Craig Jarvis - cjarvis@newsobserver.com

Tags: Rep. Mike McIntyre | Sen. David Rouzer | elections

Sixteen-year Democratic incumbent Rep. Mike McIntyre had to navigate unfamiliar territory in a newly drawn congressional district that Republicans had tailored to help elect his opponent.

Two-term state Sen. David Rouzer was forced to make new friends outside the comfort zone of his home base in Johnston County, reaching into coastal counties where he had no political connections.

The GOP effort to unseat McIntyre drew national attention and outside money that in recent weeks soared to about $9 million – predominately for Rouzer – making it one of the most expensive House races in the country. But the outcome on Election Day was too close to call. It is headed for a recount that will not result in an official winner for two or three weeks.

A mere 507 votes separate the two. But about 4,500 provisional ballots aren’t yet counted in the seven counties that are fully or almost completely within the congressional district, which slices through pieces of five more counties and picks up additional provisional votes in those.

Provisional ballots will be counted this week. Mailed absentee ballots postmarked by Monday and received before 5 p.m. Friday will be added. Beginning the morning of Nov. 16, county elections boards will begin canvassing their results and certifying them to the state.

Candidates for non-statewide office who lose by no more than 1 percent of the vote can request recounts. They must request it by noon Nov. 20. If recount requests are received while canvassing is still going on, recounts could start as early as Nov. 19. Otherwise, recounts would begin Nov. 26, state Elections Director Gary Bartlett said.

For now, both sides are waiting to see how the numbers add up. Recounts generally do not alter the outcome of elections, and the McIntyre campaign is hoping that holds true.

“It was a close election, but Mike McIntyre has received the most votes,” McIntyre spokesman Lachlan McIntosh said in a statement released Wednesday. “Because it was close, the process will need to work itself out. We have confidence in this process, and Congressman McIntyre looks forward to representing eastern North Carolina for the next two years.”

Rouzer’s camp, meanwhile, isn’t getting out ahead of the count, either. “We will let this process play out and go from there,” Rouzer spokeswoman Jessica Wood said.

Not surprisingly, Rouzer’s strongest showing was in Johnston County, where he lives. He drew more than 45,000 votes there, which amounts to 42 percent of the registered voters in the predominately Republican county, contrasted with McIntyre’s not quite 30,000 votes.

Johnston County will be going over 1,346 provisional ballots, which county Elections Director Leah Anne Price said is about typical for a presidential election. That appears to be consistent with the number of provisional ballots being reported in counties across the state, which so far adds up to about 46,700 ballots.

The vote was close in Cumberland and New Hanover counties. But in each, redistricting again played in Rouzer’s favor. In Cumberland, Fayetteville was removed during redistricting, and New Hanover County lost reliably Democratic Wilmington. Rouzer also repeated his success during the primary by doing well in Brunswick and Pender.

McIntyre had expressed optimism that he was making inroads in the new parts of the district – Lenoir, Hoke and Johnston – but he came out on top only in Hoke County. McIntyre’s strongest showing was in Bladen County, where the nearly 11,000 votes he received represented 67 percent of the total votes cast.

McIntyre, a member of the conservative to moderate “blue dog Democrats,” campaigned on his ability to help his district’s military and farming communities through his ranking membership on the armed services and agriculture committees in Congress. Rouzer and GOP-funded TV ads accused McIntyre of being ineffective and of aligning with Washington liberals.

Healthcare under Obama will undergo major changes -- and you won't like it.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 8, 2012

It's like an atomic bomb detonation. First the blinding light and explosion. Then the fall-out, which kills each of us gradually. What a way to go.

The explosion was the announcement that Obama won. The fall-out will come in stages.

First comes news that Obama will compromise our healthcare. We won't see the doctors we choose, when we need to, or get the effective care that has worked for us.

The eventual effect cannot be over-estimated. Prepare yourself. This will make you sick.

It's the emergence of ObamaWorld. And this ain't all.

• By Dr. Manny Alvarez
  Dr Manny's Notes

  Published November 07, 2012

  FoxNews.com

  Reuters

Now that President Obama has been re-elected, we need to stop arguing that Obamacare is a developing concept. It’s here and will be here forever.

Therefore, we need to realize there will be significant changes to come in the healthcare industry. Three main changes are on their way that will affect people across the nation seeking out treatment for any health issues.

The first major change will be access to care.  Soon, we will lose accessibility to the particular kinds of healthcare we want. You might not be able to pick your doctor anymore or be able to see the doctor when you want to.

Second, there will be changes in deployment of patient care.  Simply performing needed health procedures and services will become a challenge. Right now, we don’t have the infrastructure to service millions of Americans. There will need to be new hospitals built, a plan to provide better access to physicians, and more hospital personnel.

Finally, the style of care Americans receive will be impacted.  We will likely see a shift in the way patients are treated.  The focus going forward will be on prevention of diseases and other illnesses. Doctors might be facing payment for performance, and unless we change the cost structure, the inflation of healthcare dollars will rise.

Let’s not take this issue lightly: It’s a new dawn in America which will change the landscape of healthcare forever.

Americans 'give' Obama another term. This is a day that will live in infamy!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 7, 2012

inShar

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama avoided a pink slip Tuesday, defeating his Republican challenger despite a bitterly contested election that had the U.S. president's supporters fearful he was doomed to the indignity of a single term.

Victory was declared after several gut-wrenching hours that saw Obama and Mitt Romney spend election night much as they did the presidential campaign — in a neck-and-neck, topsy-turvy horse race.

His supporters in Chicago — and around the world — erupted in jubilation as soon as Obama was declared the winner. At Romney's headquarters in Boston, meantime, the mood was grim following an election believed to be well in the Republican's grasp.

Yet his success this year was in stark contrast to his historic triumph in 2008, when he became the country's first African-American president and won the White House on an inspiring message of hope and change.

In 2012, Obama's rhetoric was decidedly less soaring.
Little wonder — Americans are still struggling to recover from a devastating economic recession that took unrelenting hold of the country soon after the president took office.

Obama was no longer promising to dramatically change the toxic political culture in the U.S. capital, for example — instead, he was vowing to finish the work he'd started and urged Americans not to give up on him.

And even though he eked out victory, the election exposed bitter partisan fault lines that threaten to endure for years to come.


His triumph was the long-awaited culmination of one of the hardest-fought presidential campaigns in recent U.S. history, even though Romney appeared to still be ahead in the popular vote late Tuesday.

Under the American system, presidential candidates compete not for popular vote, but for the electoral college votes up for grabs stateside. Those votes are assigned based on a state's population and representation in Congress.

Seven states, representing 89 electoral college votes, were considered battlegrounds: Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Florida and New Hampshire.

Nevada and North Carolina were also in play for both the president and Romney.

Romney insisted the president had failed miserably to deliver on his heady promises of 2008, assailing him in particular for his handling of America's enduring economic woes. He asserted that his own business experience would make him a better choice for Americans.Election day dawned following a $2.6 billion election campaign.

Romney, the 65-year-old former Massachusetts governor, fought until the bitter end, making last-minute campaign appearances Tuesday in Ohio and Pennsylvania even as millions of Americans were casting their ballots.

"This is a big day for big change," Romney said in Richmond Heights, Ohio, alongside his running mate, Paul Ryan.

"The country's been going in the wrong direction for the last few years; we're going to steer it back onto a course that's going to help the American people have a brighter future."

Obama, meantime, officially ended his final political campaign with an emotional appearance with his wife, Michelle, on Monday night in Iowa, where he won his first primary season contest in 2008.

The president also conducted a series of TV interviews with stations in swing states. In one of those chats, Obama recalled his victory in North Carolina in 2008, where he won by just 14,000 votes over Republican John McCain.

"Do not think that your vote will not make a difference," Obama said as he implored voters to get out to the polls.
"When we won North Carolina last time, we won it by an average of five votes per precinct, which means that everybody who is listening right now, I know you can find five people who didn't vote, who have not yet voted."

And yet Tuesday night's congressional winners and losers were every bit as important as the ultimate White House victor. Congress, after all, is more powerful than the executive branch in terms of bringing to life — or snuffing out — a president's legislative hopes and dreams.

The makeup of Congress remained relatively unchanged, with Republicans maintaining control of the House of Representatives and Democrats dominating the Senate.
That means he'll face a Republican House that's no warmer to his agenda than it has been for the past two fractious years.

Photo credit: Dave Merrick

Russian Attack Sub Detected Near U.S. East Coast.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 6, 2012

Russkies not to be trusted. Who will throttle them? Hillary? Don't bet on it. Colin? He's out to pasture. Barack? Who he? Election outcome a nail-biter.

Sierra-2 submarine / fas.org

BY: Bill Gertz
November 5, 2012 5:05 pm
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine cruised within 200 miles of the East Coast recently in the latest sign Russia is continuing to flex its naval and aerial power against the United States, defense officials said.
The submarine was identified by its NATO designation as a Russian Seirra-2 class submarine believed to be based with Russia’s Northern Fleet. It was the first time that class of Russian submarine had been detected near a U.S. coast, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of anti-submarine warfare efforts.
One defense official said the submarine was believed to have been conducting anti-submarine warfare efforts against U.S. ballistic and cruise missile submarines based at Kings Bay, Georgia.
A second official said the submarine did not sail close to Kings Bay and also did not threaten a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group that was conducting exercises in the eastern Atlantic.
Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, north of Jacksonville, Fla., is homeport for two guided missile submarines and six nuclear missile submarines. The submarines are known to be a target of Russian attack submarines.
Meanwhile, the officials also said that a Russian electronic intelligence-gathering vessel was granted safe harbor in the commercial port of Jacksonville, Fla., within listening range of Kings Bay.
The Russian AGI ship, or Auxiliary-General Intelligence, was allowed to stay in the port to avoid the superstorm that battered the U.S. East Coast last week. A Jacksonville Port Authority spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the Russian AGI at the port.
“A Russian AGI and an SSN in the same geographic area as one of the largest U.S. ballistic missile submarine bases—Kings Bay—is reminiscent of Cold War activities of the Soviet navy tracking the movements of our SSBN’s,” said a third U.S. official, referring to the designation for ballistic missile submarines, SSBN.
“While I can’t talk about how we detected it, I can tell you that things worked the way they were supposed to,” the second official said, stating that the Russian submarine “poses no threat whatsoever.”
According to naval analysts, the Russian attack submarine is outfitted with SS-N-21 anti-submarine warfare missiles, as well as SS-N-16 anti-submarine warfare missiles. It also is equipped with torpedoes.
The U.S. Navy deploys a series of underwater sonar sensors set up at strategic locations near the United States that detected the submarine sometime late last month.
The submarine is currently believed to be in international waters several hundred miles from the United States.
The official said the deployment appeared to be part of efforts by the Russian navy to re-establish its blue-water naval power projection capabilities.
Naval analyst Miles Yu, writing in the newsletter Geostrategy Direct, stated that Russia announced in February it is stepping up submarine patrols in strategic waters around the world in a throwback to the Soviet period.
“On June 1 or a bit later we will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines,” Russian Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky was quoted as saying Feb. 3.
During the Cold War, Moscow’s submarine forces carried out hundreds of submarine patrols annually to maintain its first- and second-strike nuclear capabilities. By 1984, the Soviet Union was declining but its naval forces conducted 230 submarine patrols. Today the number is fewer than 10 patrols.
Richard Fisher, a military analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said Russian submarine patrols in the Atlantic have been reduced but remain “regular.”
“As was their primary mission during the Cold War, Russian SSNs [nuclear attack submarines] would likely be trying to track U.S. nuclear missile submarines deploying from Kings Bay, Ga., and to monitor U.S. naval deployments from Norfolk, Va.,” Fisher said in an email.
While the Sierra-2 is comparable to the U.S. Los Angeles-class attack submarine, Russia is building a new class of attack submarines that are said to be comparable to the latest U.S. Virginia-class submarines, Fisher said.
The submarine deployment followed stepped-up Russian nuclear bomber activity near U.S. borders last summer, including the transit of two Bear-H strategic bombers near the Alaska air defense zone during Russian strategic bomber war games in arctic in late June.
Then on July 4, in an apparent Fourth of July political message, a Russian Bear-H flew the closest to the U.S. West Coast that a Russian strategic bomber had flown since the Cold War when such flights were routine.
In both incidents, U.S. military spokesmen sought to downplay the threat posed by the air incursions, apparently in response to the Obama administration’s conciliatory “reset” policy of seeking closer ties with Moscow.
U.S. and Canadian interceptor jets were scrambled to meet the Russian bombers during the flights last summer.
The officials did not provide the name of the Russian submarine. However, the sole Sierra-2 submarine still deployed with Russia’s Northern Fleet is the nuclear powered attack submarine Pskov that was first deployed in 1993.
Confirmation of the recent Sierra-2 submarine deployment followed a report from U.S. national security officials who said a more advanced and harder-to-detect Russian Akula-class attack submarine had sailed undetected in the Gulf of Mexico in August.

New Black Panthers may be back this year. They claim they mean no harm. Are we believing this?

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 5, 2012

BLACK PANTHERS CLAIM THEY  MEAN NO HARM. ARE WE BELIEVING THIS?

King Samir Shabazz , the local leader of the New Black Panther Party, caused an uproar on Election Day in 2008 when he was videotaped with a billy club outside a polling place.

WILL BUNCH, Daily News Staff Writer 

Posted: Monday, November 5, 2012

 

THEY MAY BE back in black for Tuesday's election - the uber-controversial New Black Panther Party.

But now with 100 percent less nightstick.

You'll recall, especially if you've ever listened to conservative talk radio, that it was right here that the Election Day 2008 appearance of two local leaders of the smallish black-power posse outside a polling station at 12th and Fairmount in North Philadelphia - one brandishing a large nightstick - became a national controversy.

Critics said it was an open-and-shut case of voter intimidation and that the U.S. Justice Department, whose probe began in the Bush administration and ended during President Obama's term, let the New Black Panthers duo off too easy.

But the national leader of the group, Malik Zulu Shabazz, told a radio interviewer in September that the New Black Panthers - labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and others for its anti-white and anti-Semitic rhetoric - might be out monitoring some polling places again in 2012.

"I will say that as this election comes up in November, we will consider our options," he told WABC Radio's "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" show. "And we will consider the fact whether we will legally and lawfully
go to the polls again to make sure there is no intimidation against our people, which was our intent in 2008."

But Malik Zulu Shabazz told the interviewer, "No, sir," when asked if any poll-watchers would have nightsticks or other weapons.

The group's Philadelphia leader, King Samir Shabazz, who brandished the billy club in 2008 and was slapped with a federal injunction aimed at preventing that from happening again, claimed to the Daily News that he and fellow NBPP activist Jerry Jackson had shown up at 12th and Fairmount four years ago because of rumors that white skinheads would disrupt voting.

David Rouzer pauses for USA DOT COM interview as he campaigns in NC/7.

By Verne Strickland / November 5, 2012

GOP candidate David Rouzer was still taking his conservative message to voters in the Seventh District today as polling places were being readied for Election Day 2012.

Rouzer has worked tirelessly to promote fiscal sanity, reduced government regulation, and a return to the values that have made the Cape Fear Region one of the most desirable places in America for families to live and work.



We caught up the Senator Rouzer today to get his assessment of the election which many have called "the most important in our lifetime."

These are excerpts from that interview:

VS: Senator, what are the core messages you have emphasized during this hard-fought campaign?

ROUZER: This is a watershed election. We’re at a real crossroads in the Seventh District, as well as in America. We have a Congressman who has neglected his constituents by squandering his votes for an Administration that is selfish and destructive and wasteful. Mr. McIntyre has overstayed his welcome, and we can’t afford to have him in office for two more years. I am prepared to turn our District around by supporting fiscal sanity, reduced regulation, honesty and transparency in government. If Mike McIntyre can’t get the job done in sixteen years, he has proven that he doesn’t know how. This is our chance to get a fresh start in Washington with a true conservative. I am ready to serve the people of the Seventh District with policies that pay off in jobs and a vibrant economy. I hope voters will give me that opportunity.

VS: Jobs and the economy have been a key focal point throughout this 2012 Election. Why would a voter choose you and your platform over that of the incumbent Congressman?

ROUZER: Our State and District need a congressman who can get our economy going again. We’ve been mired too long in a stagnant situation created by politicians in Washington who have perpetuated stifling regulation and escalating taxes. Free enterprise, not bloated government, is how we create real  jobs and meaningful growth. Mike McIntyre and his friends in Washington have taken the “free” out of free enterprise. I will work with all my energy and strength to restore what we’ve lost and give our people opportunity and renewed faith in the future.

VS: As the race goes into its final hours, how do you feel you are positioned to win?

ROUZER: This is going to be a close election right down to the wire. But a leading political pollster shows the Seventh District “leaning” Republican at this time. That’s exciting news. But enthusiasm won’t get the job done if we don’t take our conservative beliefs to the polls and vote our convictions. I’m counting on each and every registered voter to do that. Liberal Democrats in Washington don’t have the discipline to solve our fiscal emergency and break the jobs crisis. I want to get to Washington and show how it can be done. I am ready for that challenge.

Romney Landslide: Here are the biggest names predicting it and how it will happen!

• Posted on November 4, 2012 by Benny Johnson

More and more pundits on both political sides are taking the electoral leap and predicting a landslide for Mitt Romney. Here are some notable ones:

1. CNBC Anchor Larry Kudlow

Photo Credit: CNBC

Kudlow said on his CNBC show “The Kudlow Report” on Oct. 25:  ”I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide.”

2.  MSNBC Host Joe Scarborough

Photo Credit: NBC.com

Based on Scarborough’s insights on Politico:

“But my gut tells me there are two likely scenarios: (1) President Obama will squeak out a narrow Electoral College victory or (2) Mitt Romney will carry Ohio and be swept into office by a comfortable margin.
After practicing politics for 20 years, I suppose I would rather be in Mitt Romney’s shoes than Barack Obama’s. Incumbents who are under 50 percent two weeks out usually go down to defeat.”

3.  Strategist Karl Rove

Photo Credit: FoxNation.com

Rove said Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal:

“In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence–from crowd sizes to each side’s closing arguments–give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America’s 45th president. Let’s call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.”

4.  Columnist George Will

Photo Credit: YAF.com

George Will outlined a huge Romney Election Day in an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” predicting a 321-217 landslide that included nearly every swing state including Minnesota.

5.  Pundit Dick Morris

Photo Credit: Mediaite.com

In a recent editorial for The Hill, Morris explained in detail his landslide prediction:

“Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor. His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).
Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.
In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.”

Morris also predicted a huge day for the GOP in the Senate:

“The most likely outcome? Eight GOP takeaways and two giveaways for a net gain of six. A 53-47 Senate, just like we have now, only opposite. Barack Obama’s parting gift to the Democratic Party.”

6.  Columnist Micheal Barone

Photo Credit: washingtonexaminer.com

The Washington Examiner columnist says Romney will walk away with 315 electoral votes:

 ”Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.”

7. Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allen Root

Photo Credit: TheBalze.com

Root said in a column posted on FoxNews.com:

“I’m predicting a 5 to 7 point popular vote victory. Electorally it won’t even be that close. Romney will win many states that went to Obama in 2008. I’m predicting Romney victories in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Indiana. I predict a Romney victory by 100 to 120 electoral votes.”

 7. Israel

Photo Credit: MittRomney.com

Abe Katsman of the Times of Israel writes of the Romney landslide among American voting in Israel:

“The Presidential election results are in.  Well, at least the votes from Americans in Israel.  Not one to keep readers in suspense, I’ll reveal the most important numbers up front: Gov. Mitt Romney received 85%–85%!–of the vote; President Obama managed only 14.3%.  This,  according to exit polling just released by iVoteIsrael, the non-partisan group promoting and facilitating voting by U.S. citizens currently in Israel.  Their statistics reveal some fascinating results.  More importantly, these results have implications for the outcome of next week’s election.  (Again, not to keep you in suspense: those implications favor the Republicans.)”

BONUS: Glenn Beck

“321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college.”

Share this ar

Sweeping up the last trash. Obama's trash. Election 2012 is at hand.

 
 
By VERNE STRICKLAND 

November 4, 2012

So here we are, mere hours before the polls open on November 6, and we are still wondering about the answer to the big question – did Obama lie about Benhazi?

Well, that’s not the biggest question. That deals with who takes home a victory on Election Day.

Whatever – the president has been caught ignoring the truth many times. Many misguided voters apparently would rather have a lying Democrat as president than a truthful Republican. 

On Fox News late today, Charles Gibson, looking very weary, is quizzing David Axelrod, who is looking very nervous and shifty.

Axelrod, who at this point still has his moustache, assures Gibson that Obama “wants to not only find out what went wrong” at Benghazi – he wants to fix it as well!

Say what? It’s way too late to “fix” anything, isn’t it? 

That story line is already written. Ambassador Christopher Stephens is dead – murdered in cold blood by Muslim jihadists after being bloodied and sodomized – and three SEALs are dead as well. 

The president failed egregiously to stay in touch with the situation, to take it seriously, and has left our diplomatic staff and their loyal but insufficient wall of protectors to go it alone – with predictable results.

Obama can perhaps be praised for wanting to never allow such a thing happen again, but this deplorable chapter in American history cannot be rewritten or revised. It is done. And he did it.

It is insulting for Obama to say now that he wants to “fix it”. As usual, the president is a day late and a dollar short. And  -- hopefully -- about  thirty electoral  votes shy as well. That oughta do it.

Wishful thinking? Could be. Prayerful concern? No doubt about it. 

Keep the prayers coming. But your vote has to be there too.God bless America.