Mediaboss Marketing

Ruby Newell-Legner, CSP NSA National President

Creating Systems that Put You Center Stage

Learn how Ruby has become a celebrity in her niche market and how you can too

Find out how to get referrals and testimonials with one simple technique

Learn how to avoid cold calling and still get booked

Review strategies for planning your presentations to plant subliminal seeds that make audience members want to hire you

Develop systems to improve your efficiency

Learn strategies for becoming a hero to every meeting planner

March 13th Seminar

April 2nd (NE Ohio)

May 1st Seminar

The Quantum Truth The magnificent Universe is designed in perfect equilibrium. When you perceive it to be otherwise you take yourself and your audiences into a fermionic oscillation that affects your energy and confuses your audiences.

In this session your journey takes you into the quantum plane to think beyond you go within. Align with your energetic source, evaluate the emotions that cause an imbalance, and express gratitude for your life as you created it.

You are the messenger for others, you are the conduit of energy...appreciate your bosonic self and inspire your audience!

Read the original:
NSA Ohio | National Speakers Association Ohio Chapter

Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during her primary night gathering on March 15, 2016 in West Palm Beach, Florida. Hillary Clinton defeated rival U.S. Sen Bernie Sanders in the Florida, Ohio and North Carolina primaries.

For a year now, Hillary Clintons misuse of email during her tenure as secretary of state has hung like a dark cloud over her presidential campaign. As I told you months ago, email-gate isnt going away, despite the best efforts of Team Clinton to make it disappear. Instead, the scandal has gotten worse, with never-ending revelations of apparent misconduct by Ms. Clinton and her staff. At this point, email-gate may be the only thing standing between Ms. Clintonand the White House this November.

Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation examination of email-gate, pursuant to provisions of the Espionage Act, poses a major threat to Ms. Clintons presidential aspirations. However, even if the FBI recommends prosecution of her or members of her inner circle for mishandling of classified informationwhich is something the politically unconnected routinely do face prosecution forits by no means certain that the Department of Justice will follow the FBIs lead.

What the DoJ decides to do with email-gateis ultimately a question of politics as much as justice. Ms. Clintons recent statement on her potential prosecution, its not going to happen, then refusing to address the question at all in a recent debate, led to speculation about a backroom deal with the White House to shield Ms. Clintonfrom prosecution as long as Mr. Obama is in the Oval Office. After mid-January, however, all bets would be off. In that case, winning the White House herself could be an urgent matter of avoiding prosecution for Ms. Clinton.

That said, if the DoJ declines to prosecute after the Bureau recommends doing so, a leak-fest of a kind not seen in Washington, D.C., since Watergate should be anticipated. The FBI would be angry that its exhaustive investigation was thwarted by dirty deals between Democrats. In that case, a great deal of Clintonian dirty laundry could wind up in the hands of the press, habitual mainstream media covering for the Clintons notwithstanding, perhaps having a major impact on the presidential race this year.

TheFBI isnt the only powerful federal agency that Hillary Clinton needs to worry about as she plots her path to the White House between scandals and leaks. For years, she has been on the bad side of the National Security Agency, Americas most important intelligence agency, as revealed by just-released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.

What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it? I sure wish Id asked about it back in 2009.

The documents, though redacted, detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who had gotten hooked on her Blackberry during her failed 2008 presidential bid, according to a top State Department security official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.

That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clintons main office space at Foggy Bottom was actually a Secure Compartment Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced skiff) by insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus information. In most Washington, D.C., offices with a SCIF, which has to be certified as fully secure from human or technical penetration, thats where you check Top-Secret email, read intelligence reports and conduct classified meetings that must be held inside such protected spaces.

But personal electronic devicesyour cellphone, your Blackberrycan never be brought into a SCIF. They represent a serious technical threat that is actually employed by many intelligence agencies worldwide. Though few Americans realize it, taking remote control over a handheld device, then using it to record conversations, is surprisingly easy for any competent spy service. Your smartphone is a sophisticated surveillance deviceon you, the userthat also happens to provide phone service and Internet access.

As a result, your phone and your Blackberry always need to be locked up before you enter any SCIF. Taking such items into one represents a serious security violation. And Ms. Clintonand her staff really hated that. Not even one month into the new administration in early 2009, Ms. Clinton and her inner circle were chafing under these rules. They were accustomed to having their personal Blackberrys with them at all times, checking and sending emails nonstop, and that was simply impossible in a SCIF like their new office.

This resulted in a February 2009 request by Secretary Clinton to the NSA, whose Information Assurance Directorate (IAD for short: see here for an explanation of Agency organization) secures the sensitive communications of many U.S. government entities, from Top-Secret computer networks, to White House communications, to the classified codes that control our nuclear weapons.

The contents of Sid Blumenthals June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clintonto her personal, unclassified accountwere based on highly sensitive NSA information.

IAD had recently created a special, custom-made secure Blackberry for Barack Obama, another technology addict. Now Ms. Clinton wanted one for herself. However, making the new presidents personal Blackberry had been a time-consuming and expensive exercise. The NSA was not inclined to provide Secretary Clinton with one of her own simply for her convenience: there had to be clearly demonstrated need.

And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with Ms. Clinton checking her personal email inside her office SCIF. Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state could log into her own email anytime she wanted to right from her desk.

But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal email on her Blackberry: she did not want to sit down at a computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team Clinton kept pressing the point, We were politely told to shut up and color by IAD, explained the state security official.

The State Department has not released the full document trail here, so the complete story remains unknown to the public. However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff, he explained, the whole rules are for other people act that I remembered from the 90s. Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal email-gateturned out to be. What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it? the former NSA official asked, adding, I wonder now, and I sure wish Id asked about it back in 2009.

Hes not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were really up toand why they went to such trouble to circumvent federal laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified information. This has come to a head thanks to Team Clintons gross mishandling of highly classified NSA intelligence.

As I explained in this column in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clintons emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clintons unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthals information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudans top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24hours before.

To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this unmistakably signals intelligence, termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clintononly one day later.

NSA officials were appalled by the State Departments release of this email, since it bore all the hallmarks of Agency reporting. Back in early Januarywhen I reported this, I was confident that Mr. Blumenthals information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one veteran agency official told me it was NSA information with at least 90 percent confidence.

Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthals June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined that Mr. Blumenthals highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.

Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence. Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her unclassified emails.

Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthals information came from their reports. Its word-for-word, verbatim copying, one of them explained. In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.

How Mr.Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and theres no firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA reportsnone of which he was supposed to have any access toand pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as well as illegal,was going on.

Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthals intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before email-gatebecame front-page news. However, he, too, had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports.

There are many questions here about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were up to, including Sidney Blumenthal, an integral member of the Clinton organization, despite his lack of any government position. How Mr. Blumenthal got hold of this Top Secret-plus reporting is only the first question. Why he chose to email it to Ms. Clinton in open channels is another question. So is: How did nobody on Secretary Clintons staff notice that this highly detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public?

These are the questions being asked by officials at the NSA and the FBI right now. All of them merit serious examination. Their answers may determine the political fate of Hillary Clintonand who gets elected our next president in November.

See more here:
Hillary Clinton Has an NSA Problem | Observer

UPDATE 11:43 a.m. ET: President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, citing bipartisan respect in the past, to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the death to Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garland, 63, is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where he has served since 1997.

I said I would take this process seriously and I did. I chose a serious man and an exemplary judge, Obama said standing next to Garland in the Rose Garden Wednesday morning. To find someone who just about everyone not only respects, but genuinely likesthat is rare.

Judge Merrick B. Garland speaks after being nominated to the US Supreme Court as U.S. President Barack Obama looks on, in the Rose Garden at the White House, March 16, 2016 in Washington, DC. Garland currently serves as the chief judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and if confirmed by the US Senate, would replace Antonin Scalia who died suddenly last month. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Senate Republicans have vowed to block any nominee Obama puts forward, preferring to let voters choose the kind of justice who will replace Scalia through the 2016 presidential elections.

Garland comes in with a mixed record and will likely face scrutiny from Republicans about his stance on the Second Amendment.

As a Justice Department attorney in the 1990s, he assisted in the high profile prosecutions of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

President Bill Clinton named Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997 and he was confirmed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate.

Fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life and it is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be for the past 18 years, Garland said Tuesday in the Rose Garden. If the Senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which I have been nominated today, I promise to continue on that course. Mr. president, its a great privilege to be nominated by a fellow Chicagoan.

In the D.C. vs. Heller gun case, which eventually made it to the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down most of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. However, Garland joined Judge David Tatel in voting to have the full court reconsider the decision. Garland and Tatel were on the losing side when the Supreme Court recognized the individual right to bear arms in the Heller case and struck down the districts ban.

There is no freedom more fundamental than the right to defend ones life and family, said Erich Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America. The Heller and McDonald decisions are hanging by a thread, as both were decided by 5-4 majorities. If Garland were confirmed, we can expect to see more gun registration, more gun bans, more limitations on ammunition, and all of it would be approved by the Supreme Court.

In a National Review piece, Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, also wrote about Garland voting to uphold an executive action by President Clinton to establish what some considered a de facto gun registration requirement.

But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalias most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in ones own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the [t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, theres a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldnt have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years

Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that hes willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners. Thats not so moderate, is it?

Garland does have a somewhat centrist record, siding with the Bush administration in a key terror case. In 2003, he joined an opinion on the D.C. Circuit prohibiting Guantanamo Bay prisoners from challenging their detention from appealing in civilian courts. The Supreme Court, in 2008, overturned this ruling in the case of Rasul v. Bush.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the choice should be up to the voters, and without speaking no ill of Garland, said: This is not about the person. It is about the principle.

Obama said he is doing his job in nominating a justice and called on the Senate and insisted that Republicans in the Senate give Garland a hearing and a vote.

Presidents dont stop working in the final year of their term, Obama said. Neither should a Senator.

Read the rest here:
Obamas Supreme Court Nominee Revealed

Any discussion of the right to bear arms has to take note of the Second Amendment. Here's Anthony Mason:

At the heart of the debate over guns in America is a single, inscrutable sentence: The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, whose wording is unusual.

Simon & Schuster

"The Second Amendment says, 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' What does that mean?"

The most-disputed clause in the Constitution is the phrase about militias, which were a great concern when the Bill of Rights was written in 1792.

"At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, there was a very big controversy about how to allocate military power," said Nelson Lund, professor of constitutional law at George Mason University. He says the states feared the new government would try to disarm the 13 state militias, which required every white male over 16 to own a musket.

"The anti-Federalists were very worried that the states would be deprived of their power to resist federal tyranny," Lund said.

"The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety," Patrick Henry argued. "We can have no security without it."

While guns were commonplace then, so were gun regulations. New York and Boston prohibited the firing of guns within city limits.

And in the notes for the Constitutional Convention, Waldman says, "There's literally not a word about it protecting an individual right for gun ownership for self-protection, hunting, or any of the other things we think about now."

"There's one side that believes that this amendment refers specifically and only to militias," said Mason.

"Well, I know people say that, but it just can't be true," replied Lund. "If you look at what the words say, it says 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms.' It does not say, 'The right of the states' or 'The right of the militias.' It says 'the right of the people.'"

The debate over the Second Amendment came to a head at the Supreme Court in 2008, in a case filed over the Capital's gun laws, called District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 vote, the court affirmed an individual's right to keep and bear arms, striking down D.C.'s ban on handguns in the home.

'The inherent right of self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, "has been central to the Second Amendment right."

But, Scalia added, "The right ... is not unlimited," also leaving room for gun regulation.

Lund said, "It is absolutely a continuing grey area."

Another grey area is how the court might rule on future Second Amendment issues after the sudden death of Justice Scalia in February.

"So, you know, a lot depends on who replaces Justice Scalia," said Lund.

For more info:

More from "Guns and America":

2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

View original post here:
Parsing the Second Amendment - CBS News

The chief judge for the Washington, D.C. appeals court was confirmed in 1997 by 76-23 after being appointed by former President Bill Clinton.

At least seven of the Republican senators who confirmed Garland are still in office, including Sens. Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Orrin Hatch, Jim Inhofe, John McCain and Pat Roberts.

Hatch has perhaps offered the most visible praise for Garland among those senators. But he released a statement Wednesday saying he still believes candidates should wait for the next president to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

"I think highly of Judge Garland. But his nomination doesn't in any way change current circumstances," he said. "I remain convinced that the best way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process after this toxic presidential election season is over."

Earlier this week, the Utah Republican suggested Obama nominate Garland.

"(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch said in Newsmax, adding later, "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election."

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad wrote a letter to a fellow Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, in 1997 to say that Garland had "a distinguished legal career."

"I am writing to ask your support and assistance in the confirmation process for a second cousin ... Merrick Garland has had a distinguished legal career," he wrote, according to the Congressional Record.

During his own confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, praised Garland's judgment.

"Any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area," Roberts said in 2005. "And the function of his dissent, to make us focus on what we were deciding and to make sure that we felt we were doing the right thing, I think was well-served. But Judge Garland disagreed, and so it's obviously, to me, a case on which reasonable judges can disagree."

Garland is "an intelligent, experienced and even-handed individual," according to former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, a Republican who found Garland's work on the Oklahoma City bombing case particularly notable and inspiring.

"Last April, in Oklahoma City, Merrick was at the helm of the Justice Department's investigation following the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, the bloodiest and most tragic act of terrorism on American soil," Keating wrote to then-Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole in 1996, according to the Congressional Record. "During the investigation, Merrick distinguished himself in a situation where he had to lead a highly complicated investigation and make quick decisions during critical times. Merrick Garland is an intelligent, experienced and evenhanded individual."

Go here to see the original:
Republicans have repeatedly praised Merrick Garland