Did Obama Administration Invite an Accomplice to Khobar Towers Bombing to White House?

The Khobar Towers bombing of 1996 killed 19 American servicemen. The FBI named the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) in an indictment. A man named Hadi al-Ameri was once the commander of the IRG. Suspicions of his involvement in that bombing are well-founded.

Today, he is Iraq's Transportation Minister under Nouri al-Maliki. On December 12th, al-Ameri was part of a delegation that visited the Oval Office. This raised concerns among a former FBI Director and a current Congresswoman, which prompted an official response from the White House. I draw your attention to what is in bold.

Via Fox Insider:

“We have no evidence of al-Ameri’s involvement with the Khobar Towers attacks, nor do we have any evidence of Hadi al-Ameri’s involvement in any act of violence against U.S. citizens. Hadi al-Ameri is the minister of transportation in the democratically elected Iraqi government. He is a longstanding partner and interlocutor of the Unites States Government, going back to the previous administration.”

It would seem that the White House, as has become commonplace, is parsing its words. This is very lawyerly verbiage and indicates a willingness to concede that al-Ameri HAS perpetrated violence against non-U.S. citizens. You will be shocked at just how bad it is.

There will be more on this in coming days.

Al-Ameri, like al-Maliki, is Shi'ite and the fact that the former holds a position this high in Iraq's government is not only disturbing but could be evidence that Iraq has already begun the process of falling into the hands of Iran.

Bringing US troops home only to leave Iraq in the hands of people like this cannot be good.

Here is an interview with a survivor of the Khobar attacks, William Schooley, on Fox News. He is obviously not happy with al-Ameri's White House visit.

NRO's Andrew McCarthy Goes after Rand Paul

First, if I was voting in a primary and my two choices were John McCain and Rand Paul, I would vote for the son of Ron every time (hopefully that will quiet the Ron Paul echo chamber for a minute). That said, National Review's Andrew McCarthy completely deconstructs the alleged constitutionalist / isolationist positions that come out of the mouths of the Paul family. In essence, says McCarthy, Rand is so paranoid about government overreach that, by default, he diminishes the true Islamist threats to our nation.

He also rips McCain pretty good too.

Via NRO:

The quest to quell Islamists by democratic processes has only empowered them. It has done nothing to enhance our security against terrorism. It has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars during a time of economic strife. It has actually provoked our enemies, whose ideology — which partisans such as McCain urge us to ignore — calls for waging violent jihad against Western forces that try to implant Western principles in Islamic lands. It has enabled rabidly anti-American Islamists throughout the Middle East to market themselves as “moderate political parties” and bask in the legitimacy the “international community” confers on electoral success — no matter how fraudulently achieved. It has cheapened true Western democracy by accommodating it to authoritarian sharia. 

Worst of all, the Islamic-democracy project has sapped the political will of the American people to take actions that are actually necessary to our defense. Democracy fetishists have worn threadbare the public’s patience. Why confront Iranian aggression or Pakistani duplicity, they wonder, if the price-tag is endless years of nation-building masquerading as warfare? Why bother if our troops are hamstrung in combat, put at risk by rules of engagement that prioritize the safety of ungrateful populations? Why mortgage our children’s future if the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is a sharia state that despises America?

He's right. The Pauliens would refer to this bunch as 'Neocons.' Exporting western Democracy to the Middle East, in hopes that it would serve as a sedative has only given the enemies of the West an opportunity it has masterfully exploited. The quintessential example is the election of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. McCain even called the Libyan rebels his 'heroes' before Gadhafi's fall. Those 'heroes' subsequently flew al-Qaeda flags from Libyan courthouses.

McCarthy's column is about the recently, highly controversial (among Pauliens) defense-authorization bill, which Paul vehemently objected to because it allegedly puts American citizens in far greater danger of losing their first and fourth amendment rights. More from McCarthy:

Claiming the “constitutionalist” mantle, Senator Paul is currently crusading against the concept of indefinite detention for enemy combatants under the laws of war. It is a deprivation, he claims, of the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. And once the government succeeds in rolling back such guarantees, he insists, they are never restored. 

As a matter of constitutional law and of history, this is nonsense on stilts. The framers would have been appalled by Paul’s premise that the Constitution endows alien enemy combatants with the due-process rights of American citizens, particularly combatants who are detained outside the United States, where the writ of neither federal nor state judges runs. The only thing the framers might have found more appalling is the notion that the Constitution licenses lawfare — i.e., that it permits the American people’s courts (which, other than the Supreme Court, are creatures of statute not required by the Constitution) to be used by foreign enemies to put on trial the armed forces of the American people over the manner in which they conduct wartime combat operations that have been authorized by the American people’s representatives (indeed, overwhelmingly authorized, because after almost 3,000 of us were slaughtered on 9/11, the public broadly demanded that the enemy be subdued). 

Paul is attacking the McCain-Levin amendment as if it broke new ground. But the amendment only reaffirms what the Constitution has always provided: Congress has the power to authorize combat operations against foreign enemies, and when it does so, the law of war governs those operations — except to the extent Congress modifies that venerable corpus. Under the law of war, enemy combatants may be detained indefinitely, which is to say, until either (a) hostilities have concluded, or (b) Congress withdraws the authorization of military force, effectively returning us to peacetime conditions.

McCarthy goes to the heart of the problem between George W. Bush Republicans (McCain) and the Alex Jones (Paulien) crowd. Specifically, the US did not identify the real enemy after 9/11 and has us arguing amongst ourselves over how best to defeat it.

Read it all if you can.

Excellent.

BOOM! Bigger Fish than al-Awlaki Killed in same Predator Drone Strike

Remember that near-miss terror attack last year when bombs were planted inside printer cartridges? The man responsible for making those bombs - as well as the Christmas Day bomb that failed to detonate over Detroit - was killed in the same Predator drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, the publisher of al-Qaeda magazine. Ibrahim al-Asiri was al-Qaeda's top Saudi top bomb maker. While al-Awlaki is widely credited with having been the inspiration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to put a bomb in his pants that was supposed to detonate over a major city, it was apparently al-Asiri who gave him the means.

Via AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two US officials say the drone strike in Yemen that killed Anward al-Awlaki appears to have also killed al-Qaida's top Saudi bomb-maker.

Officials say intelligence indicates Ibrahim al-Asiri also died in the attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the death has not been officially confirmed.

Al-Asiri is the bomb-maker believed to have made the explosives used in the foiled Christmas Day airline attack in 2009 and last year's attempted cargo plane bombing.

Assuming this report pans out, take some solace the next time you're getting groped by a TSA agent that the dirtbags who make up the trio directly responsible for that groping are either in custody or dead.

Underwear Bomber: In jail
Inspiration for Underwear Bomber: In ground
Builder of Underwear Bomber's bomb: In ground

CNN has more on Samir Khan HERE. Click HERE to jog your memory on the printer cartridge bomb plot from last year.

Coming in with the other side of this argument is none other than 9/11 Truther magnet, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). While at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, he fed a little red meat to his '9/11 was an inside job' base:



h/t Jawa and Hot Air

Two Islamic Terrorists Apprehended, Released after Crossing into US from Mexico

Any rational person who knows anything about homeland security has to admit that our open border to the south is a perfect opportunity for Islamic terrorists to blend in with Mexican nationals. There is now proof in the form of two men who were apprehended by US Border agents. It's important to point out that because far more people get through than get caught, these two terrorists are not isolated cases. They represent a sample so there are likely many more where they came from. Meanwhile, our Federal Government is doing all it can to not only ignore its responsibility when it comes to securing the border but preventing states like Arizona from doing it.

Via PJM:

Two Bangladeshis who were caught by Customs and Border Protection illegally crossing the border in June 2010 admitted under questioning that they were members of a designated terrorist organization that signed on to a fatwa by Osama bin Laden pledging to wage war against Americans.

But amazingly, after one of the men requested asylum, he was released on bond. And now one Homeland Security official tells me, concerning the released terror operative, “We don’t have the slightest idea where he is now.”

The two men, Muhammad Nazmul Hasan and Mirza Muhammad Saifuddin, were intercepted near Naco, Arizona, not long after they had crossed the border on June 25, 2010. During their interrogation, one of the men admitted that they were members of Harakat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), which was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in February 2008. Earlier this month the group claimed responsibility for a bombing a courthouse in New Delhi. That attack killed 11 and wounded at least 45 others.

Well, these terrorists were apprehended at about the same time Operation Fast and Furious was kicking into high gear as well.

From the Declaration of Independence:

He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

I think our border with Mexico qualifies as one of our 'frontiers' and I think terrorists qualify as 'savages.'

Read more at PJM

Report: Pakistan Refusing to go after Haqqani Network

This can be considered validation of what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen said in front of a Senate Armed Services Committee last week. After Mullen called out Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) for working with the Haqqani terror network, which has committed multiple attacks against US interests, including the embassy in Kabul and a truck bomb on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Pakistan's reaction would speak volumes either way. It appears that they have chose INaction when it comes to proving Mullen wrong.

Via Hindustan Times:

Pakistan's military will not take action against a militant group Washington blames for an attack against its embassy in Kabul, despite mounting American pressure to do so, a Pakistani newspaper reported on Monday.

Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq Kayani met with his top commanders on Sunday in a "special" meeting to discuss the security situation, the military said, as the war of words with the United States escalated.

That emergency meeting came against the backdrop of sharp US allegations that the Pakistani army's powerful spy agency supported the Haqqani militant group Washington blames for the recent attack on its embassy and other targets in Kabul.

The commanders agreed to resist US demands for a Pakistani army offensive in North Waziristan, where the United States believes the Haqqani network is based, the Express Tribune reported, quoting an unnamed military official.

It would appear that Pakistan's bluff has been sufficiently called. If this report is accurate, they're not even willing to go through the motions of fighting Haqqani.

h/t Free Republic

Pakistan Responds to Admiral Mullen's Charges that Pakistani Intelligence Aiding Haqqani Network

On September 22nd, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen threw down a gauntlet with Pakistan when he testified that the Haqqani terrorist network is, in essence, working with Pakistani Intelligence (ISI). In particular, he pointed to the US Embassy bombing in Afghanistan and an attack on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, in which 80 Americans were wounded. Pakistan has apparently responded to Mullen's testimony by issuing a threat and demanding evidence of Mullen's claims. Uh, how about Osama bin Laden living one mile away from a Pakistani military academy for five years? They still haven't explained that one. How about letting the Chinese get a look at our helicopter that was downed during the raid?

First up, the relevant portion of Mullen's testimony:



As for Pakistan's response, via WSJ:

Pakistani officials snapped back at the U.S. for saying its spy agency was aiding a militant group that targets Americans, and warned Washington that such accusations could sink their alliance.

Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani called the charges by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, "very unfortunate and not based on facts."

Earlier Friday, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar told an Indian news channel that "pointing fingers at each other will not help." Ms. Khar was in the U.S. for the United Nations General Assembly.

"We've never ventured into the blame game because we want to be a mature, responsible country," she said.

Adm. Mullen told Congress on Thursday that he believed the Haqqani network, a militant group linked to the Afghan Taliban and blamed by the U.S. for an attack last week on its embassy in Kabul, was a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence military spy agency.

Gen. Kayani, in a statement issued by the Pakistani military on Friday, denied "accusations of proxy war and ISI support to Haqqanis."

Gen. Kayani said "Adm. Mullen knows fully well which…countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan is neither fair nor productive," the statement said.

The good news may be that we're getting closer to identifying the actual enemies of the United States. The bad news is in how long it's taking us to do so.

More from the hearing HERE.

Video: CAIR vs. 9/11 Coloring Book Publisher, Round 2

Last week, we learned that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) objected to a 9/11 coloring book that portrayed the September 11th hijackers as Muslim. Despite the fact that they WERE Muslim, CAIR's Executive Director for Michigan, Dawud Walid called the coloring book 'disgusting.' As the controversy garnered more exposure, Wayne Bell, the publisher of the coloring book debated Walid on CNN's headline news. The best line of this clip comes from Bell, who called Osama bin Laden a 'devil worshipper.' That appeared to get Walid's dander up. It looked like he was going to take 'great exception' to something Bell said but unfortunately, Bell continued talking when he may have been better served to let Walid show his true colors.

It's unusual for CAIR to agree to debate opposition guests so this is a bit of an exception; it's also a fight CAIR would probably be better served not to engage in. A depiction of 9/11 hijackers as Muslim is not a reach. It's a fact.

At one point, Walid actually invokes the name of Dr. Seuss to make his point that cartoons have a history of being discriminatory against minorities. Yeah, that Dr. Seuss.

If you'd like to get caught up on the story before watching the debate, click HERE.

Via Big Peace, h/t Jawa:

Latest in Liberal Tripe: America to Blame for Anwar al-Awlaki Becoming a Terrorist

It is utterly amazing to watch the depths the leftwing mind will sink to in order to avoid admitting it was wrong. In this case, Salon's Glenn Greenwald actually blames the United States for turning Anwar al-Awlaki into the terrorist mastermind who inspired Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan, Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. Of course, in February of 2002, just five months after the September 11th attacks, al-Awlaki was invited to a DoD luncheon to speak as a moderate Muslim so that has to mean he transformed, right? It couldn't possibly mean the left was duped from the very beginning.

Via Salon:

The (Washington) Post says Awlaki is "known for his fiery sermons" (undoubtedly the prime -- and blatantly unconstitutional -- motive for his being targeted for killing). But what is so bizarre about Awlaki's now being cast in this role is that, for years, he was deemed by the very same U.S. Government to be the face of moderate Islam. Indeed, shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon invited Awlaki to a "luncheon meant to ease tensions with Muslim-Americans." But even more striking was something I accidentally found today while searching for something else. In November, 2001, the very same Washington Post hosted one of those benign, non-controversial online chats about religion that it likes to organize; this one was intended to discuss "the meaning of Ramadan". It was hosted by none other than . . . "Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki."

More extraordinary than the fact that the Post hosted The New Osama bin Laden in such a banal role a mere ten years ago was what Imam Awlaki said during the Q-and-A exchange with readers. He repudiated the 9/11 attackers. He denounced the Taliban for putting women in burqas, explaining that the practice has no precedent in Islam and that "education is mandatory on every Muslim male and female." He chatted about the "inter-faith services held in our mosque and around the greater DC area and in all over the country" and proclaimed: "We definitely need more mutual understanding." While explaining his opposition to the war in Afghanistan, he proudly invoked what he thought (mistakenly, as it turns out) was his right of free speech as an American: "Even though this is a dissenting view nowadays[,] as an American I do have the right to have a contrary opinion." And he announced that "the greatest sin in Islam after associating other gods besides Allah is killing an innocent soul."

Does that sound like the New Osama bin Laden to you? One could call him the opposite of bin Laden. And yet, a mere nine years later, there was Awlaki, in an Al Jazeera interview, pronouncing his opinion that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow up a civilian jet over Detroit was justified (while saying "it would have been better if the plane was a military one or if it was a US military target"), and urging "revenge for all Muslims across the globe" against the U.S. What changed over the last decade that caused such a profound transformation in Awlaki?

Instead of admitting to being duped or even acknowledging the premise that says al-Awlaki knew that the only way he COULD speak at the DoD luncheon was to portray himself as moderate (Islamists do that, you know), Greenwald creates his own theory that says al-Awlaki was moderate then but because of America's actions in Afghanistan, he transformed into a bad guy and is justified somehow.

Taqiyya was invented for people like Greenwald.

h/t Jawa

Video: DHS Head Janet Napolitano says Targeting Muslim Men is 'Not Good Logic'

I don't know what's more amazing, the fact that Janet Napolitano said focusing our efforts on Muslim males is 'not good logic' or that someone in this very liberal environment asked her a question about it. Try watching all the way through if even possible. You are watching a woman in Napolitano who is making every effort not to identify that which she is charged with protecting Americans from - the real enemy. This is beyond disgraceful.

Via GWP:

Is Obama's Violation of War Powers Act Impeachable?

Though George Will doesn't use the word 'impeach' in his column, he does use the word meretricious to describe Obama's attempt to split hairs with regard to the 1973 War Powers Act, a law that says any President must seek congressional approval within 60 days of engaging American forces in military conflict, which is what's going on in Libya right now. Seemingly inherent in Will's indignation over Obama's violation of the law - the 60 day expiration occurred over a week ago - is the implication that in breaking the law, impeachment considerations should be a consequence.

Will writes, via the Washington Post:

Enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, the WPR may or may not be wise. It is, however, unquestionably a law, and Barack Obama certainly is violating it. It stipulates that a president must terminate military action 60 days after initiating it (or 90, if the president “certifies” in writing an “unavoidable military necessity” respecting the safety of U.S. forces), unless Congress approves it. Congress has been supine and silent about this war, which began more than 70 days ago.

All presidents have resented the WPR but have taken care to act “consistent with” its 48-hour reporting requirement. So on March 21, two days after the administration took the nation to war in Libya, Obama notified Congress of this obvious fact, stressing that U.S. operations would be “limited in their nature, duration, and scope” in the service of a “limited and well-defined mission.” Months ago, before it metastasized into regime change, the “well-defined” mission was to protect civilians.

In his March 28 address to the nation, Obama said “the United States will play a supporting role.” But the WPR does not leave presidential warmaking utterly unrestrained if it is a “supporting role.”

Perhaps, in addition to continuing the debate about whether Obama is breaking the law, another question needs to be answered in light of how he's treated his ideological allies - Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright - as a result of his actions in Libya. Both were angry with Obama over the decision to go into Libya, as was the leader of the group the Obama Justice Department let off the legal hook in the Voting rights case - Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).

Why is Obama going to the mat over Libya?

Read it all.

Video: Institutional and Willful Media Ignorance

American Airlines Flight 1561 was about to land in San Francisco when a Yemeni passenger named Rageh Ahmed Mohammed al-Murisi ran toward the front of the plane yelling 'Allahu Akbar' and began pounding on the cockpit door while continuing to scream the Arabic phrase. Multiple passengers reported this and were convinced al-Murisi was intending to do harm. Yet, on news reports all over the country, what the man shouted was quite conspicuously left out. Some also reported that no motive was determined.

Watch this montage of news reports that show ten separate news reports from stations whose news directors should be fired. The first report is from a local San Francisco affiliate and gives the facts. The reports that follow are simply derelict in their duty to report the truth.



h/t Michelle Malkin

Obama's Muslim Envoy Worse than Pastor Jones?

Forget for a moment that Barack Obama's envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) should have been fired last year when he was caught in a lie - more on that later. Rashad Hussain has just returned from a trip to Afghanistan in which he told locals that the promotion of Islam is the antidote to Islamic violence. While speaking in Kabul, Afghanistan Hussain said the answer to these problems is 'Islam itself.'

Via Investors Business Daily:

Islamic law calls for vengeance against anybody who insults Islam, its prophet or its holy book. Islamic law is enshrined in the post-Taliban Afghan constitution. Yet Rashad, a devout Muslim, says the Muslim faith is "key" to the administration's strategy to turn Muslims away from violence.

"We see that as one of the key elements of a strategy to address this type of violence," he said. By "we," he means the Obama administration. So it's now official policy to try to douse the Islamic fire of jihad by pouring more fuel on it. This is breathtaking.

It's also at odds with what the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — including Democrat lion Lee Hamilton — recently recommended in their follow-up report on homegrown terror, "Assessing the Terrorist Threat: A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group."

It found that Islam was catalyzing terrorists abroad and inside America's Muslim community. And it scolded U.S. leaders for pretending otherwise. Still, Hussain insists: "When it comes to the problem of violent extremism, Islam is not the problem."

How about this from WND:

A month before swarms of violent Afghans beheaded United Nations workers in the name of Islam, President Obama's top envoy to the Muslim world promoted Islam in a visit to Afghanistan, arguing it was one of the "strongest tools" against such violence.

In February, Rashad Hussain, U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, gave a talk in the Afghan capital of Kabul in which he called on locals to recommit themselves to their religion:

"I am of the opinion that one of the strongest tools that you can use to counter radicalization and violent extremism is Islam itself, because Islam rejects violent extremism," Hussain told the gathering of Afghans, according to a transcript obtained by WND from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

Last year, after Rashad Hussain was named as Obama's Islamic envoy, it was learned that he spoke at a 2004 Muslim Students Association (MSA - Muslim Brotherhood group) event at which he defended convicted terrorist fundraiser, Sami al-Arian. The revelations came courtesy of an account of the event in a newspaper report. Hussain denied he said such things and blamed the reporter. When POLITICO obtained a recording of his words and presented it to the White House. Hussain had to admit to lying but was never fired.

If Hussain is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood - of which the MSA is part - it is indeed interesting to consider that the Obama administration's policies in the Middle East seem to favor the Brotherhood in almost every instance, including Libya.

More on what happened last year HERE and HERE.

Video: Shameless RINO Lindsey Graham Wants to Rescind First Amendment during War with Unidentified Enemy

While on CBS's Face the Nation, Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) said he wished there was a way to hold people (like Pastor Terry Jones in Florida) 'accountable' for burning the Qur'an. He then said that 'Free speech is a great idea but we're at war.' As justification for shutting it down, he harkened back to WWII and said Americans were prevented from saying things that could 'inspire the enemy.' Senator Graham, perhaps if you political leaders accurately identified an enemy, people like Terry Jones wouldn't be 'inspired' to do what he did. Just who did Terry Jones 'inspire' with his Qur'an burning?

When the subject turns to Libya, Graham insists that Gadhafi should be removed from power without any apparent understanding of what would fill the void.

Exchange starts at the 2:00 mark.



Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday called Terry Jones a 'Total Jackass.' Amazingly, the words he had for the murderers who reacted to Jones were not as strong. Once again, Kristol exposes himself as completely hypocritical. In 2006, he proudly explained why the Weekly Standard decided to publish incendiary Muhammad cartoons.



Diana West over at BIG PEACE explains perfectly the position of those who disagree with RINOs like Graham. If the liberal media and political leaders aren't careful, they're going to end up making Terry Jones a hero.

h/t Hot Air

Texas Congressman: Label Drug Cartels 'Terrorists'

In light of the ATF / DOJ Gunwalking scandal, the attempts by U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX) to identify drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) will only serve to underscore how bad or corrupt the decision was to allow guns to 'walk' into Mexico. Even more interesting is the fact that McCaul's proposed legislation would necessarily involve Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because it would require her to be the one to identify cartels as such.

That's a potential issue for her because Rep. Darrell Issa has already sent her a letter to Hillary asking for her to turnover any documents relative to a meeting in Mexico city between US Ambassador to Mexico and an Asst Attorney General. It's believe that the meeting involved discussions about Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF program that allows guns to 'walk' into Mexico.

Via CNS News:

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) introduced legislation on Wednesday that would direct Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to designate Mexican drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) – a designation that would put them on the same list as al Qaeda, the Taliban and Hezbollah.

The designation by the State Department also would make the named cartels subject to the same sanctions as other terrorist organizations, including the freezing of the cartels’ monetary assets and the criminal prosecution of those that provide “material support or resources” to an FTO.

“Cartels kidnap, kill, and mutilate innocent civilians, elected officials and law enforcement, using gruesome tactics to intimidate government officials and citizens to abide by their rules,” said McCaul, chairman of the Homeland Security Oversight, Investigations and Management Subcommittee, which held a hearing on the cartels on Thursday.

Hard to say if McCaul's bill is meant to put more pressure on Hillary and the Obama administration about its stonewalling with regard to Project Gunrunner but it may have just that effect. If a Secretary of State not only refuses to identify as terrorists those who congress mandates as such but stonewalls efforts to uncover the administration's involvement in arming such groups, it's likely to only compound her problems.



Read it all.

Video: Trump's Message is Resonating Big Time

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump's words are resonating in a big way with the Tea Party. He got more traction than anyone prior to him when he demanded Obama present his Birth Certificate. He's also saying what many Americans have been demanding from a leader for years. China is a threat to the United States but no one has put forth a plan of how to deal with it. To his credit, Trump has done so. Iraq? The cost of the war since 2003 has been over $1 Trillion. Trump's solution? Stay there and pay down the debt with the oil we rightfully secured.

The alternative would be to leave with a $1 Trillion debt and watch Iran take control of the oil. Trump has been getting a lot of time on O'Reilly's show this week but this excerpt may be the best so far. I've got some issues with Trump but couldn't agree more with his arguments in this exchange.

Via Fox Nation:

Video Outrage: Rumseld says the Phrase 'War on Terror' a Mistake

Gotta give CNN's Piers Morgan credit for this line of questioning with Donald Rumsfeld. After stating that he comes from a large military family, Morgan sides with the premise that 'terror' is not an enemy; it's a tactic. He then asks Rumsfeld if the former Secretary of Defense thinks the phrase 'War on Terror' was a mistake. Rumsfeld answers in the affirmative and then says he voiced his opposition at the time but that George W. Bush made the decision anyway.

Rumsfeld seemed to take mild umbrage at the follow-up question about who overruled him but it's clear that Bush did after watching this. This is outrageous because there were plenty of voices at the time who knew 'terror' is a tactic, not an enemy. Frankly, most conservatives who understood the Islamist threat knew that. Yes, it's much more difficult for a president to make the right call on such a thing compared to the citizenry but isn't that why it's called 'leadership?' Besides, those who thought an actual enemy should have been identified - like the Muslim Brotherhood - were right. That should count for something.

Via CNN:



Here is video of George W. Bush in a Mosque less than one week after 9/11/01 and it speaks volumes nearly 10 years later about how wrong the phrase 'War on Terror' was.



h/t Hapblog

Video: 'Allahu Akbar' Shouted Before Murder of U.S. Soldiers, Administration Not Sure if Terrorism

Just before Kosovo Muslim Arid Uka opened fire on a bus, killing two U.S. Servicemen, he shouted 'Allahu Akbar.' Yet, the Obama administration is not only avoiding the words 'Islamic terrorism' in describing it, they still aren't even willing to call it a 'terror attack.' Uka even has a facebook page that provides more than enough information as to what drove him. Check out this report from Fox News in which State Department Asst Secretary P.J. Crowley does his best Robert Gibbs impersonation, stammering through his explanation about why this can't be called an act of terrorism yet.



The Daily Mail reported:

This is the face of the man suspected of killing two U.S. soldiers in Germany in an Islamist rage.

The photo is from Arid Uka's Facebook page - once listed under his real name but changed recently to that of Abu Reyann, his chosen 'warrior' name.

The site is littered with references to Holy War, hatred of 'non believers' and has his favourite saying - 'may the eyes of the cowards never sleep' - by Khalid Bin Walid, an ancient Islamic fighter who united Arabia for the first time.

'This is my favourite killer outfit when rolling the dice on black ops,ha ha,' he boasts to his friends on the social networking site - probably more a reference to the computer game of the same name that he played avidly than any attack like that he carried out in Frankfurt which left two Americans dead and two severely wounded.

Arid Uka photo from his facebook page:

h/t Gateway Pundit

MUSLIMS BOMB CHRISTIAN CHURCH, SHEIKH BLAMES JEWS

Outside a New Year's Eve mass in Alexandria, Egypt a suicide bomber exploded two cars, killing 21 and injuring 79. Al-Qaeda has been identified as the group most likely responsible, despite Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's claims that al-Qaeda doesn't operate inside Egypt. Catholic online reported that all 21 deaths were Christian and that all but 8 of the 79 injured were Christians. The White House issued a statement that didn't implicate Islam at all.

Now we have a Sheikh claiming that the attacks were likely perpetrated by the Jews. No, seriously.

Via Translating Jihad:

The Vice President of the Supreme Islamic Shi'ite Council in Lebanon, Sheikh 'Abd-al-Amir Qablan, denounced the bombing which occurred in front of Saints' Church in Alexandria, in northern Egypt, and which led to the death of 21 people.

Qablan said in a statement: "This terrorist act bears the mark of Zionism, which is accustomed to destroying religious holy places, and is in the interest of Zionism, which seeks to sow fitna, and foment sectarian and ideological differences."

These kinds of ridiculous lies can spread when the truth about what actually happened is suppressed, even by our White House.

HERE is the White House statement.

HERE is an account of the bombing from Catholic Online.

h/t Gateway Pundit

VIDEO: DHS OFFICIAL UNAWARE OF TERROR ARRESTS

This really is quite the trio heading up our national security efforts. They're really making it tough to root for them. We watched yesterday as ABC released a clip of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano assuring Americans that people under her command are working '24/7, 364' to keep us safe. Now here we have Director of National Intelligence James Clapper left speechless by Diane Sawyer after she asks him about the recent arrest of 12 in London. Why was he speechless? He apparently had just learned about the arrests when Sawyer asked him about them.

To Sawyer's credit, she even came back to Clapper a little later and expressed her surprise that he was unaware of the 12 arrests earlier that morning. Clapper apologized and conceded he didn't know. Brennan attempted to defend him by telling Sawyer that while she asked Clapper about London, she didn't ask about the arrests. That was a stretch at best. Why would such a distinction not have been made by Clapper after it had become clear that Sawyer had been talking about the arrests.

On another note, the only mention of the word "Muslim" in this exchange was when Clapper put it in the same sentence with the word "outreach."



h/t Weasel Zippers

DHS SECRETARY: 'WE'RE WORKING 24/7, 364 DAYS A YEAR'

As if any of us needed another reason to question the competence of Janet Napolitano in the war against Islamic terror, she delivers one almost a year after telling Americans 'the system worked' when the Christmas Day bomber's underwear failed to explode as his plane descended into Detroit. In this exchange, Dianne Sawyer asks Napolitano to give Americans assurance that her Department will keep them safe during this season of heavy travel.

Her response? Freudian slip or not, assuring viewers that DHS is working hard 24/7, 364 days a year only helps to further the perception that it's ill-equipped to deal with the threats our nation faces. The worst part? She didn't even tell us which day her department is going to take a snooze so we could prepare. My follow-up question would be to ask her if travelers would get the added benefit of not having their junk touched on that day as well. I mean, it's the least the DHS can do, right?

My inclination would be to give the head of the DHS a pass for making such a mistake but Napolitano has already proven to be far too incompetent to hold the position.

Via MediaIte: