The White House 2012 “war room”
“Right now, it seems as if the duties of DHS overlap those with political issues, such as the re-election campaign. As I mentioned before and can’t stress enough, the line between domestic terror threats and political ‘enemies’ is blurred beyond recognition,” stated my source.
“Understand this: This administration has a very effective mechanism in place to monitor, in real time, internet posters and postings. This is one group of people who understand how the internet works, and is using their people to compile potential threats. Not Islamic terrorist websites, either. American websites and social networks. We are spying on our own people, not for domestic threats, but for political ones against this administration. it’s called ‘the war room,’” stated this source. “This is different than the campaign war room full of young volunteers hopped up on Red Bull and experienced in video games. This is “eyes only.’”
I asked for examples of “political surveillance,” and my source had plenty. “Drudge, of course, [Andrew] Breitbart, although that threat seems to have been timely diminished, Glen Beck, Sheriff Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse, [Alex] Jones, and a host of conservative, anti-affordable health care, and anti-abortion sites for others. I’m not going to get into other names, as we could compromise everything as the list is closely guarded and updated constantly. And I don’t think I need to specifically mention your group, do I,” he asked rhetorically.
“Also, this group is often proactive in terms of mitigating potential threats. Their process is to ‘identify, infiltrate, disrupt, marginalize and ultimately, destroy.’” The last part, “destroy,” got my attention. Asking how, my source provided a rather vague answer. “In the most efficient manner possible. The tactics vary. You couldn’t just take down the Drudge website, for example, but things could be done to weaken its effectiveness in a number of areas. Remember, the infrastructure of the internet is being more tightly controlled. Look at the proposed legislation. What do you think that’s for? And it also depends on the nature of the [political] threat.”
Presuming the answer, I asked the following question nonetheless. What about the FOIA process as a method of exposure of such tactics? After all, one would think such a process could be fully corrupted. “Really, that’s your question,” he replied. Enough said.
When asked who ultimately receives briefings about political threats, this source stated that “after proper ‘formatting’ and ‘coding’ the information ends up at the White House.” “But in whose hands,” I pressed. Sounding incredulous, he stated “you want me to name names?” “Yes, I’d really like that” was my reply. “I don’t know all of them as more than one type of report is compiled, but I can tell you that Valerie Jarrett gets a copy, maybe the first one. So does [David] Axelrod, but as he’s not on the premises, I don’t know all of what he gets. But I’ve said all I can about this. Just understand that the level in which this administration is involved in monitoring and reporting open source communications for political gain, under the pretext of national security is staggering.”
I am greatly concerned about the steady erosion of the America I was born into and the polarization of society. I used to think liberals were a healthy balance to our culture and now I see what they have done to America and other cultures throughout the world. I fear we are at the doorstep of another civil war and it will be a repeat of the Weimar Republic where conservative Christian capitalist battle socialist unionist through the streets of Germany for years.
Translate
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
The White House 2012 “war room”
The White House 2012 “war room”
“Right now, it seems as if the duties of DHS overlap those with political issues, such as the re-election campaign. As I mentioned before and can’t stress enough, the line between domestic terror threats and political ‘enemies’ is blurred beyond recognition,” stated my source.
“Understand this: This administration has a very effective mechanism in place to monitor, in real time, internet posters and postings. This is one group of people who understand how the internet works, and is using their people to compile potential threats. Not Islamic terrorist websites, either. American websites and social networks. We are spying on our own people, not for domestic threats, but for political ones against this administration. it’s called ‘the war room,’” stated this source. “This is different than the campaign war room full of young volunteers hopped up on Red Bull and experienced in video games. This is “eyes only.’”
I asked for examples of “political surveillance,” and my source had plenty. “Drudge, of course, [Andrew] Breitbart, although that threat seems to have been timely diminished, Glen Beck, Sheriff Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse, [Alex] Jones, and a host of conservative, anti-affordable health care, and anti-abortion sites for others. I’m not going to get into other names, as we could compromise everything as the list is closely guarded and updated constantly. And I don’t think I need to specifically mention your group, do I,” he asked rhetorically.
“Also, this group is often proactive in terms of mitigating potential threats. Their process is to ‘identify, infiltrate, disrupt, marginalize and ultimately, destroy.’” The last part, “destroy,” got my attention. Asking how, my source provided a rather vague answer. “In the most efficient manner possible. The tactics vary. You couldn’t just take down the Drudge website, for example, but things could be done to weaken its effectiveness in a number of areas. Remember, the infrastructure of the internet is being more tightly controlled. Look at the proposed legislation. What do you think that’s for? And it also depends on the nature of the [political] threat.”
Presuming the answer, I asked the following question nonetheless. What about the FOIA process as a method of exposure of such tactics? After all, one would think such a process could be fully corrupted. “Really, that’s your question,” he replied. Enough said.
When asked who ultimately receives briefings about political threats, this source stated that “after proper ‘formatting’ and ‘coding’ the information ends up at the White House.” “But in whose hands,” I pressed. Sounding incredulous, he stated “you want me to name names?” “Yes, I’d really like that” was my reply. “I don’t know all of them as more than one type of report is compiled, but I can tell you that Valerie Jarrett gets a copy, maybe the first one. So does [David] Axelrod, but as he’s not on the premises, I don’t know all of what he gets. But I’ve said all I can about this. Just understand that the level in which this administration is involved in monitoring and reporting open source communications for political gain, under the pretext of national security is staggering.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Everything about this administration is corrupt, and most of its behavior is also illegal.
ReplyDelete