Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube RSS

Archive for Category : News: Terrorism & Civil Unrest


Rush: Obama Created Crimes With Gunrunning

Original Article - Rush: Obama Created Crimes With Gunrunning

Radio giant Rush Limbaugh is coming down hard on the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” operation today, calling it “liberalism on parade” in a misguided attempt to promote stricter gun control in America.

“The whole point of Fast and Furious was to create mayhem in Mexico among drug cartels with American-made weapons easily procured so that you and I would stand up in outrage and demand tighter gun laws,” Limbaugh said.

“It was deceitful. It was sneaky. It was going against the will of the American people. It was liberalism on parade. It’s who these people are. They want tighter gun laws.”

The White House today tried to undercut a congressional investigation of the scandal in which the Department of Justice allowed guns to be sold and delivered to Mexican drug cartels by announcing tens of thousands of documents were covered by executive privilege.

This afternoon, a House panel voted to place Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with a subpoena for the documents, defying Obama’s assertion of executive privilege.

All 23 Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted for the contempt resolution, while all 17 Democrats voted against it.

Limbaugh explained Obama and his officials were actually creating crimes.

“There’s no other way to characterize this,” Limbaugh said. “They created, they manufactured crime. They enabled crimes. They saw to it that American guns ended up in Mexican drug cartel hands. And, of course, those people get the guns, they use them. When, in fact, it probably was difficult for the drug cartels to get the guns. It probably was not easy for the drug cartels to get the guns. Certainly not walking into gun stores in Phoenix and elsewhere, then crossing the border.”

“It would be no different than if they wanted to ban airplanes, to engineer a bunch of crashes,” he continued, providing an analogy. “If this bunch wanted all airplanes grounded, [they] sabotage a bunch so they crash, and the people [of] the country demand that all airplanes be grounded. They wanted these guns that were used in these crimes to come from America. They made it easy for the drug cartels to get American guns.”

Limbaugh said Obama is seeking an assault-weapons ban, but he resorted to the “Fast and Furious” tactic because he could not get a ban through the regular political process.

“It’s kind of like if you’re NBC and you want to illustrate that certain trucks are dangerous,” he explained, referring to real-life 1992 shenanigans performed by NBC’s “Dateline” program and its reporter Michelle Gillen.

“You put an explosive in a gas tank, and then you turn on the truck and remotely drive it down the road. Then you trigger the explosive remotely, the truck blows up, and you claim the truck’s dangerous. Then you get the truck off the road. But it’s only dangerous ’cause you at NBC blew it up. NBC did that for a TV show.”

The Fast and Furious operation led to the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.


Washington Backs Islamists as Sinai and Gaza Explode

Original Article - Washington Backs Islamists as Sinai and Gaza Explode

The Los Angeles Times reports that the Obama administration is “deeply concerned” by the Egyptian military regime’s having seized powers so as to prevent a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the country.

Pentagon press secretary George Little said that “We…urge the [military] to relinquish power to civilian-elected authorities….” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that “We are particularly concerned by decisions that appear to prolong the military’s hold on power.”

As the report notes, the military regime’s move is aimed at preventing the Brotherhood’s presidential candidate Mohamed Morsi—if he has indeed been elected—from “declaring war without the agreement of the ruling generals.”

In other words, it’s a move aimed at preventing an Egyptian attack on Israel, the total collapse of Israeli-Egyptian peace, and a drastic regional destabilization.

The generals are not acting against the Islamists because they’re wonderful people who love Israel and the West. They are, however, sane pragmatists who do not want Egypt, with its severe economic problems, to be dragged into a ruinous conflict.

And for their efforts, the generals have the Obama administration up in arms and crying foul.

How differently the situation is viewed in Israel is revealed by, for instance, veteran military analyst Alex Fishman, who wrote: “This is no longer the same Egypt. It is no longer the same border, the peace treaty is dying, and we better start to change our way of thinking.”

Fishman was referring to how much the situation has already deteriorated since the fall of Hosni Mubarak—hailed at the time by the likes of Obama and Thomas Friedman—in February last year. He was also referring to a military flare-up over the past few days that has seen scores of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza.

The flare-up began, however, south of Gaza on Monday when terrorists—Gaza-based but of Al Qaeda provenance—tried to breach the fence Israel has been building along its southern, Sinai border with Egypt to keep out terrorists, smugglers, and illegal labor migrants.

And it is since Mubarak’s fall that the situation in Sinai has gone to seed as this tract of land—which figured in the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty as a peacekeeping buffer zone—has been taken over by both Bedouin and international-terror gangs, sometimes working in tandem, as the central regime in Cairo has its hands full trying to quell anarchy closer to home.

The current round of hostilities has also seen Hamas—the Islamist rulers of Gaza—openly taking credit for the rocket fire for the first time in years. That lack of inhibition is widely viewed in Israel as reflecting a surge of confidence over the developments in Egypt, particularly the prospect of Hamas’s parent movement—the Brotherhood—and other Sunni extremists taking over or at least steadily gaining ground there.

Indeed, a year and a half after the start of what some may still be calling the Arab Spring, the view from Israel is not among the more uplifting in the country’s short history.

To the west and south, the direct security threat steadily worsens as arms from Libya—a country where the Western powers succeeded to sow anarchy and a possible Islamist takeover—flow unhindered into Sinai and Gaza

To the east and north, the ongoing Syrian crisis poses grave risks of the Assad regime’s huge chemical-weapons stockpiles falling into dangerous hands through—again—either anarchy or a Sunni-jihadist takeover.

And in the background Iran—which hopes to capitalize on the Islamist energies of the Arab Spring, which it more accurately calls the “Islamic Awakening”—is succeeding along with the world powers to sustain a transparent sham of “nuclear talks” with, incredibly, yet another “round” having been scheduled for Istanbul in July 3 after this week’s “round” in Moscow yielded absolutely nothing by all accounts.

Israel’s worsening security environment along with stubborn Western failure to understand the regime’s dynamics—a failure that is the flipside of sheer tiredness and cynicism—does not, then, add up to an encouraging picture.

The situation has, though, fostered an enhanced unity that has seen the rise of an almost wall-to-wall, apparently stable governing coalition, and a decline of Israel’s own delusions that not long ago produced such bitter internal dissensus.

With Washington backing the belligerent fanatics in Egypt against the moderates, and still, with its allies, playing ineffectual games with Iran, Israel will need all the unity and realism it can muster.


Documents: ATF Used “Fast and Furious” to Make the Case for Gun Regulations

Original Article - Documents: ATF Used “Fast and Furious” to Make the Case for Gun Regulations

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 “disappointing and ironic.” Keane says it’s “deeply troubling” if sales made by gun dealers “voluntarily cooperating with ATF’s flawed ‘Operation Fast & Furious’ were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles.”

The Gun Dealers’ Quandary

Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.

Sometimes it was against the gun dealer’s own best judgment.

In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. “We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys,” writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, “(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items.”

ATF’s group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there’s nothing to worry about. “We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail.”

Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.

“I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands…I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country.”

“It’s like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back,” says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. “It’s a circular way of thinking.”

The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.

The “Demand Letter 3″ Debate

The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that’s unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.

Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they “have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico.” The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.

On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to “commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs.”


Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. “There’s plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we’ve learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It’s pretty clear that the problem isn’t lack of burdensome reporting requirements.”

On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how “Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities.” So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.

“In light of the evidence, the Justice Department’s refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable,” Rep. Issa told CBS News.


Why “Operation Fast and Furious” Becomes a Massive Headache for Eric Holder and President Obama

Original Article - Why “Operation Fast and Furious” Becomes a Massive Headache for Eric Holder and President Obama

Yes, we know that the controversial “Operation Fast and Furious” originated during the administration of President George W. Bush, just like we know that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were products of the the Bush administration. But recent events coming out of Washington and now the announcement of a wrongful death suit against the Justice Department by the family of the US Border Patrol agent who was gunned down by Mexican drug runners prove one thing: this isn’t about President Bush anymore, this is about the current administration of President Obama. This is about a failed “war on drugs” that continues to reflect a US-Mexico relationship that leads to nowhere.

Today President Obama exerted executive privilege for this first time in his administration when Congress asked for more information about a setup that basically sold US guns to Mexican drug cartels. After that, Holder was held in contempt by the Congressional committee that was investigating this. Sure, the logic is that by supplying tracked guns to criminals, you have a better chance of capturing them (which in essence makes no sense to us, since we still can’t get beyond the fact that the US government gave guns to Mexican drug dealers), but let’s repeat this again: the US government sold guns to Mexican drug cartels.

To those who don’t want to hear it, that is what happened, and yes, we know that the administrations of many US presidents have done similar things, but the past is the past. This is the now. And while you will hear the typical partisan talk about this (the GOP is out to get Holder and Obama), the fact remains: the US government sold guns to Mexican drug cartels. And now President Obama is invoking executive privilege. Yes, executive privilege about a situation that we can state with confidence added to the thousands and thousands of deaths in the failed war on drugs. Now, we are NOT saying that “Operation Fast and Furious” is the direct cause of the Mexican drug tragedy, but it is one of its many causes. And for those who don’t know by now, over 50,000 people have died as a result of this sad and senseless war.

You would think that if anything good came out of “Operation Fast and Furious,” the Obama administration would have let the American people know by now. People would accept results, but it appears that very little positive results have occurred. Instead we get executive privilege and tons of questions. We will leave the partisan claims to others, we tend to focus on one of the sad consequences of this whole campaign: the death of a US Border Patrol agent. As CBS News reported today:

CBS News has learned that the family of ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata has filed a claim for wrongful death against the Justice Dept. and other federal agencies. Zapata was gunned down by suspected drug cartel members in Mexico in Feb. 2011 with weapons later linked to an ATF case in the Texas area. Joining the claim is Zapata’s surviving partner in the attack: Victor Avila.

In an interview last November, Zapata’s family told CBS News they feel that U.S. law enforcement could have stopped the sale of a gun used to kill their son. CBS News obtained law enforcement records that show the gun that killed Zapata came from the U.S., and the suspects who allegedly trafficked it had been under law enforcement’s watch for months in Dallas but weren’t arrested.

In February, CBS News learned a second weapon used in the Zapata attack was also linked to an ongoing case under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The Justice Department has said ATF “was not aware of” the suspect’s purchase of the gun that killed Zapata when it happened, and that answering further questions would jeopardize the investigation.

This isn’t some patriot conspiracy blog reporting this. This is flipping CBS News. You don’t think there are questions about this? Shouldn’t the American people demand that more transparency be displayed here? What are the secrets that are not being shared? And why?

The tragedy of the Mexican drug war has negatively affected too many lives. When is enough enough? If the Obama administration had real political courage, it would be in front of this story and be more forthcoming. Instead, we get immigration promises and campaign videos in Spanish, while people continue to die south of the border. Maybe Obama is just like the rest of the American presidents who have followed a Monroe-Doctrine philosophy with Latin America. The more things change…. well, you know how that ends.


Issa Pushes Ahead With Holder Contempt Vote Despite Obama Intervention

Original Article - Issa Pushes Ahead With Holder Contempt Vote Despite Obama Intervention


Rep. Darrell Issa pressed ahead with a committee vote Wednesday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, despite an 11th-hour move by President Obama to exert executive privilege over the Fast and Furious documents at the heart of the dispute.

The announcement instantly touched off a caustic debate on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as Democrats accused Issa of prosecuting a “political witch hunt” and Republicans stepped up their criticism of Holder’s “stonewalling” over the Fast and Furious probe. Even for Washington, the tone at the hearing was decidedly bitter and accusatory.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was first informed of the president’s decision to exert executive privilege in a letter Wednesday morning, shortly before the contempt vote was scheduled.

Issa said committee staff are evaluating the letter but described the move as too little, too late as he and other GOP lawmakers questioned the basis for the assertion.

“This untimely assertion by the Justice Department falls short of any reason to delay today’s proceedings,” Issa said.

Issa accused the Justice Department of trying to compel the committee to close its investigation in exchange for documents it hasn’t yet seen. “I can’t accept that deal. No other committee chairman would,” he said.

But Issa’s Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., fired back that Holder never made such a demand — a Justice official also refuted Issa’s claim — and said the attorney general had come to the committee in “good faith” to try and work out an agreement.

Cummings said the upcoming contempt vote has “diminished” the prestige of the panel. “For the past year, you’ve been holding the attorney general to an impossible standard,” he said, addressing Issa. “Mr. Chairman, it did not have to be this way. It really didn’t.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., added that she was “horrified” by the panel’s looming vote, calling it a “political witch hunt” and accusing Republicans of “overruling” the president.

If the vote proceeds, Republicans have more than enough votes on committee to pass the contempt resolution. However, Holder would not be considered held in contempt of Congress unless and until the full House approves the measure.

The move by Holder and Obama to lock down some requested documents only complicates the fight over the botched anti-gunrunning operation between the legislative and executive branches.

After Holder made the request to Obama via letter on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., on Wednesday informing him that the president has granted the request.

“We regret that we have arrived at this point, after the many steps we have taken to address the committee’s concerns and to accommodate the committee’s legitimate oversight interests regarding Operation Fast and Furious,” Cole wrote. “Although we are deeply disappointed that the committee appears intent on proceeding with a contempt vote, the department remains willing to work with the committee to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues.”

Obama’s decision pertains to documents from February 2011 and afterward examining how Justice officials learned about the Fast and Furious probe.

Holder, in his letter to Obama requesting he assert executive privilege, said those documents pertain to the “deliberative process” on how to respond to congressional and media inquiries.

Wednesday’s developments follow a flurry of activity Tuesday, as Holder tried to negotiate a way to avert the contempt proceedings. Issa had earlier indicated a willingness to postpone the vote after Holder indicated a willingness to make compromises and supply some documents in response to House Republicans’ subpoena.

But Issa told reporters after a roughly 20-minute meeting with Holder Tuesday that the attorney general instead briefed them on the documents in lieu of delivering them.

Issa told Fox News that Holder didn’t provide “anything in writing,” and said the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry wants the documents as much as he does.

“We want the documents. Brian Terry’s family would like the documents that are responsive to how in fact their son was gunned down with weapons that came from lawful dealers but at the … behest of the Justice Department,” Issa told Fox News. Weapons from the Fast and Furious anti-gunrunning operation were found at Terry’s murder scene.

Issa further said during the committee meeting Wednesday that the purpose of the probe “has never been to hold the attorney general in contempt.” He said the committee had an aide on Capitol Hill all night in the hope that the Justice Department might send over documents to the panel.

The failed Fast and Furious operation attempted selling thousands of guns to arms dealers along the U.S.-Mexico border to trace them to leaders of drug cartels. However, many of them showed up in crime scenes.

Congressional investigators have been trying to determine if and when high-level Justice officials knew about problems with the operation.

Holder said Issa rejected what he thought was “an extraordinary offer.” Holder called for the Capitol Hill meeting late Monday in a possible attempt to make a deal with Issa and avoid the contempt vote.

“We offered the documents that we thought would resolve the subpoenas,” he said. “The ball is in their court.”

The contempt vote in the oversight committee will likely pass considering Republicans outnumber Democrats 22 to 16.

GOP House leadership has given Issa the green light to proceed how he sees fit, sources told Fox News, which suggests the vote would reach the House floor.

Issa had demanded to see a trove of documents on the controversial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation. He also wants to know who prepared a now-retracted letter from Feb. 4, 2011, in which the department claimed the U.S. did not knowingly help smuggle guns to Mexico, including those found where Terry was killed.

Issa wrote back to Holder later Monday requesting he deliver roughly 1,300 documents pertaining to the Feb. 4 letter. The letter also stated Holder needed to deliver a description of all the documents he will not produce.


Iranian-American woman says Apple Refused to Sell Her an iPad

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 20, 2012

Original Article - Iranian-American woman says Apple Refused to Sell Her an iPad

N.J. resident Jim Otun reads a dua from the Quran on his iPad (Rich Schultz/AP)19-year-old Sahar Sabet says an Apple Store in Georgia refused to sell her an iPad after a store representative overheard her speaking in Farsi.

“Very hurtful, very embarrassing. I actually walked out in tears,” Sabet told WSBTV about her experience.

When a reporter from the station returned to the same Apple Store with Sabet, the employee once again reiterated that it is Apple company policy to not sell products to anyone from Iran. The WSBTV reporter recorded video of the exchange on her phone.

Sabet is a U.S. citizen and a student at the University of Georgia but the iPad was to be a gift for a cousin living in Iran.

“When we said ‘Farsi, I’m from Iran,’ he said, ‘I just can’t sell this to you. Our countries have bad relations,’” Sabet said.

The employee showed them Apple’s corporate policy on export sales, which reads:


The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria

The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a statement after the incident, calling on Apple to change its corporate policy on sales to Iran.

“Apple must revise its policies to ensure that customers do not face discriminatory treatment based on their religion, ethnicity or national origin,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “If the actions of these Apple employees reflected company policy, that policy must be changed and all employees retrained.”

Sabet says she later called Apple’s corporate customer relations, where an employee reportedly apologized and told her she could buy an iPad online.


Homosexual Cannibal Killer Pleads “Not Guiilty”

Original Article - Homosexual Cannibal Killer Pleads “Not Guiilty”

Luka Magnotta, a Canadian porn actor accused killing, eating and mailing the dismembered body parts of his lover to schools and government offices, pleaded not guilty to five criminal counts including first degree murder.

Flanked by guards and expressionless, Magnotta, 29, appeared at the Montreal courthouse via closed-circuit video link for a hearing that lasted less than five minutes.

His lawyer, Pierre Panaccio, entered the plea on Magnotta’s behalf and requested his client undergo psychiatric evaluation to determine his fitness for trial.

That motion will be decided Thursday when the court reconvenes.

Panaccio told Magnotta he wanted to discuss his defense with him and asked him call him at home.

“I’d be pleased to talk about this,” Panaccio said, according to the CBC. “Okay,” Magnotta responded, before being led back to his cell.

Magnotta arrived in Montreal Tuesday following his extradition from Germany. At the tarmac in Montreal, he was escorted off a military transport plane in shackles and escorted by a team of law enforcement officials.

Magnotta was arrested on June 4 in a Berlin Internet café, days after police believe he videotaped the murder of Jun Lin, mutilated his body and mailed his hands and feet to government offices and schools. Lin’s torso was discovered near the Montreal apartment where Magnotta lived. Lin’s head, however, remains missing.

Charged with first degree murder, Magnotta was for a time considered a priority fugitive by Interpol. He did not fight extradition and quickly admitted his identity when confronted by police in Germany, telling them, “OK, you got me.”


Hundreds of Thousands of Israelis Under Siege by Gaza Terrorists, 44 Rockets Since Midnight

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 19, 2012

Original Article - Hundreds of Thousands of Israelis Under Siege by Gaza Terrorists, 44 Rockets Since Midnight

Four people were hurt, one of them seriously, in a terror rocket strike on the Hof Ashkelon Local Authority Tuesday night. The Maariv website says the injured Israelis are Border Policemen, and that the seriously injured man is an officer.

Forty-four terrorist rockets slammed into southern Israel between midnight and 10:30 p.m. Tuesday. Most rockets were of the short range Kassam type but three Grad Katyushas were fired at Netivot.

No casualties were reported but the incessant rocket fire has placed hundreds of thousands of Israeli under siege since yesterday.

The IAF has carried out three strikes on terror targets in Gaza in the last 24 hours, killing at least six terrorists. An IAF strike Tuesday afternoon severely injured a man who was on a motorcycle, Gaza sources said.

Hamas has taken responsibility for the rocket fire at the Negev. It said it was trying to hit the IDF’s Zikim base, and that the rockets were a response to IAF strikes last night. No Israeli casualties have been reported but thousands of residents have been forced to spend the day in shelters.

The two terrorists who infiltrated Israel Monday were a Saudi citizen and an Egyptian belonging to a hitherto unknown group called the Shura Council of the Mujahedeen at Al Quds, Associated Press reported. The two appear in a video made public by the group in which they can be seen reading their final wills before launching the attack.

In a leaflet published along with the video, the group dedicates the attack to the Al Aqsa Mosque, Arab terror prisoners held in Israel, and Osama bin Laden.

The terrorists killed one person before being killed themselves.

The prospect of missile attacks on major Israeli cities seemed outlandish before the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza, but Israel has since grown used to such attacks. The government did not declare anything resembling a state of emergency Tuesday and the prime minister found time to doodle.


60 Illegals From Countries That ‘Promote, Produce, or Protect’ Terrorists Caught Along U.S. Coastlines

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 19, 2012

Original Article - 60 Illegals From Countries That ‘Promote, Produce, or Protect’ Terrorists Caught Along U.S. Coastlines

The U.S. Border Patrol in fiscal 2011 caught 60 aliens from countries “that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members” trying to enter the United States through its coastal boundaries, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In fiscal 2011, the Border Patrol caught a total of 6,552 aliens along the U.S. coast lines. Of these, 4,123 were “other than Mexican” (OTM).

CBP provided CNSNews.com with a country-by-country breakdown of the nations of origin for these 4,123 OTMs apprehended along U.S. coast lines.

In May 2011, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security published a list of what DHS calls “specially designated countries” which the IG defined as those “that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” The IG report also carried an appendix naming the 34 nations, plus the West Bank and Gaza, that DHS considers “specially designated countries.”

(The list of “specially designated countries” appended to the DHS IG report initially included Israel. However, after Israel’s presence on this list was reported by CNSNews, DHS removed it and said it had been included by mistake.]

In fiscal 2011, nationals from 16 of the specially designated countries were among those caught along U.S. coastlines. These included:

Bangladesh: 2
Egypt 2
Indonesia 5
Iran 1
Iraq 1
Jordan 7
Lebanon 1
Libya 1
Morocco 4
Pakistan 1
Philippines 10
Sudan 1
Tajikistan 7
Thailand 4
Turkey 5
Uzbekistan 8


Illinois: School Bus Used By Catholic Pro-Life Group Firebombed In Retaliation For Closing Of Abortion Clinic!

A large school bus, owned by Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Academy, that is well known throughout Rockford for its beautiful pro-life pictures and words asking people to “pray to end abortion”, was fire bombed on Friday night. The damage was extensive to the bus as windows were broken in on both sides and fire bombs were thrown inside to cause maximum damage.It has been speculated that this bombing of a pro-life Christian school bus is in retaliation for the closing of the Rockford abortion mill that is located not far from where the school bus was attacked.

 Illinois: School Bus Used By Catholic Pro-Life Group Firebombed In Retaliation For Closing Of Abortion Clinic


Issa to Holder: You have until Tuesday a.m. to Give Up Fast and Furious Docs

Original Article - Issa to Holder: You have until Tuesday a.m. to Give Up Fast and Furious Docs

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa told Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday that he has until Tuesday morning to produce Operation Fast and Furious documents or his committee will be voting to hold him in contempt of Congress on Wednesday.

“[O]nly the delivery of documents outlined and offered by the Department of Justice last Thursday to staff will be sufficient to justify a postponement of Wednesday’s scheduled vote,” Issa wrote to Holder on Monday afternoon. “As the department has not yet produced these document – and unless it does so tomorrow morning – I will not be able to offer you the committee’s assessment of them at tomorrow’s meeting.”

In a letter to Issa earlier in the day, Holder asked to meet at 11 a.m. Issa responded that the meeting will take place at 5 p.m. — only after his committee staff can review the promised Fast and Furious documents.

In his letter, Holder argued he had taken “extraordinary” steps to accommodate Issa’s subpoena. Issa shot back, saying, “There is nothing extraordinary about an offer from a federal agency to fully or partially respond to a subpoena.”

Issa also said nothing “short of full compliance” will be “sufficient” for him to “negotiate” a “delay of contempt proceedings” because Holder has not specified what documents he plans to give the committee this week and has not provided a “log that includes descriptions of documents, the dates they were created, who created them, and individualized explanations for why the department believes these documents should not be produced pursuant to the subpoena.”

It’s unclear if Holder will actually produce the documents in time to halt the contempt of Congress vote. His spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, wouldn’t answer when The Daily Caller asked if he will.


Rand Paul Tries To Shoot Down Drone Surveillance

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 18, 2012

Original Article - Rand Paul Tries To Shoot Down Drone Surveillance

The junior senator from Kentucky seeks to protect the Fourth Amendment from the advance of technology and require that all forms of surveillance by law enforcement require a warrant from a judge.

Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures include aerial surveillance of your house and property? Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., thinks so.

He introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, which would require the government to get a warrant before using aerial drones to surveil U.S. citizens.

“Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued,” Paul said Tuesday. “Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics.”

We live in an age awash with cameras in stores, banks, parking lots, and most public places. Many cities have red light cameras at intersections to catch scofflaws and cameras on neighborhood corners to monitor gangs and other bad guys lurking in high-crime neighborhoods. Police cars are constantly on patrol.

The operative word here is public and in these situations the expectation of privacy does not apply. Certainly as we fight an ongoing war on terror we tolerate, despite the excesses, an invasion of our privacy in the form of body scans, luggage searches and the like.

We accept these actions because they aid law enforcement in its legitimate duty and help protect us from the dangerous and the criminal.

The argument is that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Yet we know the store is looking for shoplifters, the camera on that pole is looking for people running red lights or gangbangers selling drugs. We can see the police car driving down the street. We can’t see the drone over our house as we barbecue with friends and family.

To tap our phones or search our premises, law enforcement must go before a judge and demonstrate that there is probable cause that a crime is being or has been committed. How are these things different from a drone flying over our homes taking pictures of our homes and equipped perhaps with infrared and radar that can “see” through the walls of our homes?

Sen. Paul says his bill allows exceptions “such as the patrol of our national borders, when immediate action is needed to prevent ‘imminent danger to life,’ and when we are under a high risk of a terrorist attack.”

In all other situations, he suggests we put a bell on the government cat.

As we have reported, the Environmental Protection Agency has been flying drones over the farm belt looking for violations of the Clean Water Act. Such drones pick up footage of the farm, but also any activity on it by the farmer and the family. Is this a legitimate function of government?

With whom is all this data being shared, and just who is watching the watchers?

“Our Founding Fathers had no idea that there would be remote-control drones with television monitors that can feed back live data instantaneously—but if they had, they would have made darn sure that these things were subject to the Fourth Amendment (protecting individual privacy),” Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, told Fox News.

Giving law enforcement every possible tool to protect us would seem to be a good thing, but that must be balanced against the protections of our liberty. Americans have a right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and a right to be secure in their homes (and backyards) from unwanted and unwarranted surveillance.

Benjamin Franklin once said that those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither. And, history shows, they are likely to wind up with neither.


Israel Moves Tanks Near Egyptian Border Following Attack

Original Article - Israel Moves Tanks Near Egyptian Border Following Attack

The Israel Defense Force has moved tanks closer to Egypt following a cross-border attack into the Jewish state by bomb-laden terrorists who targeted defense contractor crews building a border fence.

Ynet News reported that armored units will supplement existing IDF forces in the region, even though Israeli tank maneuvers so close to Egypt’s border is a violation of the peace treaty with Cairo.

The paper said the last time IDF bolstered its presence in the area was n August 2011, following a terror attack by the Islamic Jihad, which left nine Israelis dead.

The paper’s chief military commentator, Ron Ben Yishai, “noted that several months ago, Israel and Egypt arrived at an agreement by which Cairo would be able to deploy 20 tanks near the border, to ward off attacks by Bedouins on Egyptian forces, despite the fact that such a move contradicts the peace treaty,” Ynet reported.

Israeli commanders say the IDF’s relationship with Egyptian military forces is good.

“The IDF has strong ties with the Egyptians forces, who are working tirelessly to thwart such incidents,” Gaza Division Southern Brigade Commander Col. Tal Harmoni told reporters following Monday’s attack.


As Muslim Brotherhood Takes Over Egypt, the New York Times Laments the World’s Impact on Obama

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 18, 2012

Original Article - As Muslim Brotherhood Takes Over Egypt, the New York Times Laments the World’s Impact on Obama



RUSH: There is an article in the New York Times today that essentially makes the same point. It’s the world’s fault that Obama’s having problems. Europe and economics. Syria and other places in the Middle East.

Oh, speaking of which! I wasn’t gonna do this but I changed my mind. Grab audio sound bite number one. Go back to this. I was not gonna do this, but now it’s reared its head. January 31st of 2011. When the Muslim Brotherhood… You know when the Arab spring was going on and the Muslim Brotherhood was wreaking havoc and trying to get Mubarak out of there? Old buddy Nic Robertson from CNN was over there on the ground in Tahrir Square (which is not a square), and he was talking to all these Egyptians.

“So, tell us, Egyptians…” One was Mustafa and the other one was Achmed. (Nic Robertson impression) “Tell us, Mustafa, how do you feel about President Obama and his magnificent role in gaining freedom for you?”


“President Obama? He’s not here. President Obama is not helping us. What are you talking about Obama for?”

“Okay, let me move on. Achmed, can you please tell us: What do you think about President Obama being concerned about Egyptians having jobs?”

“Obama? He’s not here. Why the hell are you talking? What are you asking me about Obama for? We’re trying to get rid of Mubarak. What’s Obama got to do with it?”

“And as you can see,” said Nic Robertson, “President Obama is much on the minds of Egyptians here who greatly and gratifyingly approve of President Obama.”

All while this is going on, our great moderate Republicans said, “Oh, man, the Arab Spring is great! Freedom is breaking out.”

And I said, “I don’t think so.”

January 31st, 2011, last year…

RUSH ARCHIVE: It is the Muslim Brotherhood, but what’s really known about ‘em? They claim they’re for democracy and all that, but that could all be a smokescreen. On the other hand, we have said from the get-go that if you wanted the second term of Jimmy Carter, elect Barack Obama. Well, here we are. And what happened in the first term of Jimmy Carter? We lost Iran to a bunch of radical Islamist extremists. Are we looking at the second term of Jimmy Carter here, losing Egypt to a bunch of radicalized Islamist extremists?

RUSH: Looks like that’s exactly what happened. That was January 31st of 2011, a year and a half ago, folks. Back then, it was popular to say, “The Muslim Brotherhood, that’s a different bunch of guys! These are guys we can work with. They’re moderates. That’s exactly right.” Well, it turns out they’re not. They’re just as radical as any other Islamic jihad group is, and the military is running the country. The Brotherhood took over for the military. It was a planned handoff.

I think back to all of our moderate Republican foreign policy establishment types, celebrating. “Oh, it’s such a wonderful thing, the outbreak of freedom in the Middle East.” Now the New York Times has this story, and here’s the headline: “In a World of Complications, Obama Faces a Reelection Test.” So Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post says (summarized), “Poor Obama! It’s so partisan out there, he can’t get anything done. He has to answer for everything. There’s just too much disagreement.

“The job may be too big for one man. It’s just not possible! You know, it used to be that we’d all be able to get things done, but now all this Twitter and Facebook make me irrelevant.” Now the New York Times with a companion story: “In a World of Complications, Obama Faces a Reelection Test.” Yeees, my friends, it’s Greece and Spain and those stupid Europeans who can’t handle money. And in the Middle East we’ve got the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egypt situation and all that. That’s crashing around. And they’ve got the Iranians and their nukes.

Then you got the foreign policy leaks from the regime. You know, back in January of 2011, we were told that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn’t behind the Arab Spring or the Egyptian uprising and that they wouldn’t start a political party, that they wouldn’t run for parliament. They wouldn’t put up a candidate for president. Everything they did, we were told they wouldn’t do. Everything they stand for, we were told they didn’t stand for. Everything they were going to do, they haven’t done. Everything that we predicted they would do, they’ve done.

So now, events are cascading out of President Kardashian’s control! Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post is worried about it, and the New York Times writes: “In a World of Complications, Obama Faces a Reelection Test.” That New York Times story, want to hear how that starts? All right. “For Obama, a president who set out to restore good relations with the world in his first term, the world doesn’t seem to be cooperating all that much with his bid to win a second term.”

And what the hell is the world thinking?

Doesn’t the world know that its only reason for existence is Obama’s second term?

Well, that’s how this thing is written.

“Europe seemed unable to contain its economic crisis to just Greece. The Syrian conflict has intensified. Egypt’s popular revolution’s at risk of being reversed by the military.” (chuckling) It was never anything other than that. There really is brazen, blatant stupidity and arrogance at the highest levels of journalism today. I can’t… “Egypt’s popular revolution is at risk of being reversed by the military”? (laughing) And then the Russians “are cracking down at home and rattling sabers abroad.” The Russians are giving defense missiles to Bashar al-Assad. Yep, the Russians are giving defense missiles to Syria. How petty! (That’s right, helicopters, too.)

How petty and selfish these other countries are. They got their priorities mixed up.

Their job is to make Obama look good, not their own self-interests.

Don’t they get it?


RUSH: By the way, the New York Times story I was just talking about, they have an alternative headline. Yep. They have two headlines with the story, and the second one is: “Is Obama’s Reelection Complicated by World Events?” Both headlines basically say the same thing. But it’s all about how the world is not cooperating with Obama. Europe, not cooperating with Obama (as far as his reelection’s concerned). Middle East, not cooperating with Obame. Russia, not cooperating. And don’t forget, this is really a slap from Putin.

Because you remember what Obama said to Medvedev a couple months ago. He said (paraphrased), “Hey, tell Vlad to chill out. I’ll have a lot more flexibility after I’m reelected.” He was talking about us getting rid of nuclear weapons, nuclear missiles. “You just tell Vlad, chill. I’ll have a lot of flexibility, a lot more flexibility after I win.” So what does Putin do? (Hey, no one ever leaves the KGB.) Putin is sending defense missiles to Syria! And of course that’s viewed as “unhelpful” to Obama’s reelection.

I want to know: What president did the world cooperate with for reelection? I would venture to say that the world helped get Obama elected. If you recall back in the 2008campaign, Ahmadinejad would say something about America and it sounded just like any other Democrat and what he was saying. I remember saying, “My gosh, if the leader of Iran is criticizing my country the same way I do, I’d be embarrassed.” But not these guys, not these Democrats. But it was clear that the world wanted Obama elected.

Now the world apparently doesn’t want him reelected, and they don’t have their priorities straight it. The New York Times is trying to embarrass the world here into shaping up and getting into the right frame of mind. You know, this is not the first time that Obama has had to bypass Congress by ignoring its laws. You gotta remember that Obama decided to no longer enforce or defend the Defense of Marriage Act. He just decreed that one day. He’s decided not to prosecute medical marijuana cases. He’s issued countless waivers to Obamacare for his friends and he’s allowed states to opt out of the “No Child Left Behind” requirements.

So this immigration thing is not the first time that he’s gone (raspberry) to the Constitution. It’s a habit for the guy. If you look at the shenanigans they had to employ to get Obamacare passed in the first place, you see it. But I’ll tell you, if you read this New York Times piece through and through (you don’t have to because I’ve done it for you), in a nutshell the New York Times piece says that Obama’s failures aren’t just Bush’s fault. The world is to blame, too. Not Obama! None of this is his fault. It’s Bush’s fault and Europe’s and the Middle East’s and North Korea’s and Russia’s.

And probably Hugo Chavez’s. (I’ll throw him in just for the sake of it.)




Bogus Homeland Security Funded Study Pushes “Tea Party Terrorism” Narrative

Original Article - Bogus Homeland Security Funded Study Pushes “Tea Party Terrorism” Narrative

In an era of agenda-driven academic research, who watches the watchers? Or more accurately, who gets to designate and categorize the “objective” data? This is the question raised after examining a study and related dataset recently published by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland.

START was launched in 2005 with a $12 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security, and is recognized by DHS as one of its “Centers for Excellence.” In December, DHS announced it had renewed START’s funding to the tune of $3.6 million.

A recent START study titled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008” puts the “excellence” description in question. A press release announcing the report states the study concluded that nearly a third of all terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2008 occurred in just five major metropolitan areas. The study was based on a START database called “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States,” and both the report and database are supported by the DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division.

Reading through the study, some baffling issues arose. In Table 4 (p. 22), titled “Hot Spots of Religious Terrorism by Decade”, three “hot spot” areas — Los Angeles, Manhattan, and Wasco, Oregon (former home of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) — are identified:

But there seems to be some data missing when it comes to known Islamic terrorist incidents in New York City and Los Angeles. The study shows no religious terrorism in Manhattan during the 1990s. How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge Jewish student van shooting by Rashid Baz that killed 16-year-old Ari Halberstam after Baz heard a fiery anti-Jewish sermon at his local mosque? Or the 1997 Empire State Building observation deck shooting by Ali Abu Kamal that killed one tourist and injured six others before Kamal took his own life?

And then there was the 2002 shooting at the Los Angeles Airport El Al counter by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet that killed two and wounded four others. The FBI and Justice Department concluded that the attack was a terrorist attack by an Egyptian assailant bent on becoming a Muslim martyr.

These are reflected nowhere in the study. Perhaps, like the 2009 Fort Hood massacre by Major Nidal Hasan, who gunned down his U.S. Army colleagues while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” these incidents are considered acts of “workplace violence” and not religious terrorism?

Have these incidents been redefined to prevent facts from conflicting with an agenda-driven narrative? Or have these data points been excluded altogether?

Struck by these glaring omissions, I went to the START “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States (PPT-US)” dataset that the study is based upon. START describes the findings from the database:

Preliminary findings from PPT-US data also illustrate a distinct shift in the dominant ideologies of these terrorist groups over time (see Figure 1), with the proportion of emerging ethnonationalist/separatist terrorist groups declining and the proportion of emerging religious terrorist groups increasing. However, while terrorist groups with religious ideologies represent half of all emergent groups in the 2000s (three out of six), they only account for six percent of groups over time. (Emphasis added)

It’s easy to conclude that religious ideologies are insignificant when you exclude well-known instances of religious-based terrorism from your analysis. And speaking of the Fort Hood massacre, I would note that the cutoff date of the database, 2008, excludes other acts of Islamic terrorism (Fort Hood, the Little Rock Army recruiting center shooting). Convenient, indeed.

But looking at the START dataset’s codebook, other startling problems emerge.

Compare how the START researchers define “left wing” and “right wing” extremism. Left-wing extremism is defined at follows:

Extreme left-wing groups want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. In addition, this category includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical sociopolitical system (anarchists).

Fair enough. Now, right-wing extremism:

The extreme far-right is composed of groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty. (Emphasis added)

If you’re fiercely nationalistic (pro-American), anti-global (anti-UN), suspicious of centralized federal authority (like the Framers), reverent of individual liberty (like Patrick Henry), and believe in “conspiracy” theories (like the federal government allowing the sale of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify limiting American’s rights under the Second Amendment, a la Fast and Furious), then according to these taxpayer-funded researchers, you too are on the “extreme right-wing.” Many Americans would be surprised to find themselves so categorized by the researchers at START.

It should be no surprise that two subgroups identified in the codebook under “extreme right-wing” include “gun rights” and “tax protest.” Tea Party terrorists, anyone?

Again, this raises the question: who gets to categorize the data?

Anti-Semitism is included in the codebook as a subgroup for both the “racist” and “extreme right-wing” categories, but it is missing as a subgroup for the extreme left-wing. Because after all, it’s not like extreme left-wing groups like the Center for American Progress revel in their anti-Semitism, right?

It is amazing what you won’t find when you don’t look, or more specifically, when you define out the possibility or exclude data that conflicts with your predetermined conclusions altogether. But when you examine the roots of the taxpayer-funded START program, no one should be surprised at its agenda-driven study.

The recently appointed director of the START center is the Obama administration’s de facto Islamophobia czar, Bill Braniff. An example of Braniff’s blindly partisan research methodology can be seen in his statements quoted in a July 2011 NPR article, where he spies widespread Islamophobia in law enforcement training:

I think this is something that happens across the nation fairly consistently … No one is tracking this with numbers, but anecdotally we are hearing about it all the time. The Muslim-American community is being preyed upon from two different directions. One, the jihadist recruitment and radicalization that is actively preying on their sons and daughters; and two, the elevated levels of Islamophobia — Islamophobia at worst and distrust and alienation at best.

Note Braniff’s sweeping assessment (it “happens across the nation fairly consistently”) and his immediate admission that there is no objective basis for his assessment (“no one is tracking this with numbers”).

But Braniff goes further to demonize anyone who disagrees with his rampant Islamophobia conspiracy theories, by equating “Islamophobes” with al-Qaeda and accusing them of “preying” on the Muslim community like jihadist recruiters. Such is the standard of scholarship from the director of the START program (the NPR article itself was criticized for deliberately eliminating salient facts directly relevant to the matter).

With such hysterical and partisan leadership from Bill Braniff, it is no surprise to see the START program so eagerly promoting the Obama administration’s preferred ideological narratives (such as Janet Napolitano’s redefining of terrorism as “man-made disaster” ). Nor is it a surprise to see START steamrolling facts to define out of existence domestic terrorism committed by Muslim terrorists, while simultaneously spying a looming terrorist movement from Americans concerned with the direction of our country, like the Tea Party. (And let’s not forget the actual domestic terrorists now emerging from the Left’s Occupy movement.) We’ve seen these bait-and-switch efforts from Homeland Security before. Repeatedly. And using highly suspect sourcing.

The far Left is free to engage in these paranoid fantasies as they see fit. It’s a free country after all. But it is another thing entirely when they are funded by the U.S. taxpayer — whom these “academic” studies regularly demonize — and form the basis for actual policies for federal law enforcement and national security agencies. (Such as launching FBI investigations into returning war veterans, or targeting American citizens as potential threats because of the bumper stickers on their vehicles.)

Who is watching the watchers? Nobody, apparently.

Crush Marxism!
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Boycott The Home Depot!

Take The Traditional Marriage Pledge!

Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab

Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Twitter Feed
Follow @wewintheylose (20449 followers)
Welcome , today is Friday, June 22, 2012