Census Worker Found Hanged With “fed” Scrawled On Chest

(Analyst's note:  This is a sad and troubling case, whatever the cause.  Violence is simply NOT the answer.)

By DEVLIN BARRETT and JEFFREY McMURRAY

WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery. A law enforcement official says the word "fed" was scrawled on his chest.

The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old Census field worker and occasional teacher, was found Sept. 12 in the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky. ....

Your phone calls won the day!!!! Border security amendment passed 259-167

BIG CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF YOU!

You won!

And everybody on all sides in the U.S. House was surprised. You caused what may have been a watershed vote today. Thanks to every one of you who made phone calls as we requested the last two days.

You handed the open-borders leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives a huge defeat today. And what a margin!


259-167!

H.R. 324 (the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act) late this afternoon was amended to ensure that nothing about the designation would affect the ability of the Border Patrol to carry out its enforcement duties. Without that language, there was a huge loophole that very well might have been used to block efforts to stop the movement of illegal aliens across that huge Arizona area.

Republicans voted unanimously 174-0 in favor of the pro-enforcement change. Even the usually-open-borders Republicans felt compelled to vote for it.

But Republicans can't make anything happen on their own. And they almost never persuade the necessary 40-45 Democrats it takes to win on anything the last three years.

But the Republican leadership won today because it rallied behind an immigration-enforcement measure that the public would overwhelmingly support.

This change of language won because your barrage of phone calls yesterday and today caused 85 Democrats to know that their constituents really care about border security, that they are paying attention to even obscure legislative happenings and that they very well might punish them if they continue to vote with the open-borders leanings of their Party leadership.

85 Democrats voted with us.

Go to our home page to see how your Reprentative voted. The Vote Tracker will be up soon.

BREAKING OPEN-BORDERS ARROGANCE

One reason this vote was so important is that it may have sent a message to Speaker Pelosi and all her team that they cannot afford to continue to be on the wrong side of the immigration issue on any bill they care about.

Pelosi's response to concerns about illegal aliens and the federal health plan was to demand that those concerns NOT be addressed. The result -- thanks to incredible work of NumbersUSA activists and others throughout August -- was that those concerns became a huge public negative on the health bill. Even Pres. Obama had to dissassociate himself from Pelosi's position.

THE INSIDE STORY OF YOUR VICTORY

It is always good to savor a victory. The NumbersUSA culture for 13 years has been to roll around in the victory, and then start fighting the next battle the next day.

Enjoy.

In committee, Rep. Bishop (R-Utah) expressed a concern about the H.R. 324 Arizona bill undercutting border security efforts, the leadership suspended the rules and refused to even allow a vote on a Bishop amendment.

Tuesday morning, we learned from Rep. Bishop that he was going to take on an uphill battle to persuade the House Rules Committee to allow his amendment to come up for a vote on the House floor Wednesday. There once was a time under both Parties that Members of the House were given lots of opportunity to amend and perfect a bill on the floor. Now, very few amendments are ever allowed unless the House leadership favors them.

We mobilized our members across the nation Tuesday mid-day, and within an hour had phones ringing throughout the House, asking that the Bishop pro-enforcement amendment be allowed a vote.

By Tuesday evening after hours of phoning that raised this issue to top visibility on the Hill, Rep. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) was ready to tell the Rules Committee that he would offer to change his bill to have language to meet the concerns of Bishop and the phone callers. We appreciated his new-found sensitivity.

By Wednesday morning, Rep. Bishop saw that the new Grijalva language was too loose but that the addition would preclude the Rules Committee from letting the Bishop amendment come to a vote. With the high visibility that your phone calls were giving this issue, Rep. Bishop was able to get the attention of Republican leadership which agreed to mobilize all the Republicans behind the one tool still available to the minority -- the Motion to Recommit.

At mid-Wednesday -- once we knew we had the Republican votes because of leadership support -- we mobilized NumbersUSA's members to phone Democratic Members to try to persuade 40 to vote for the Motion to Recommit (which generally is seen as a slam against the majority Party's leadership).

Frankly, when the voting started late Wednesday afternoon, we assumed we would lose by 10-25 votes. Early voting suggested we were right.

I think Bishop and the Republican leadership primarily hoped to make a statement, not to actually win.

But with only about 20 votes (mainly Democratic) still out, we had a basically tied vote at around 205-205. At that point, 37 Democrats were voting YES. Our experience is that Speaker Pelosi allows as many politically vulnerable Democrats as possible to vote with us but pressures others to either vote the other way or hold their votes until the end and then vote based on what will eek out a one-vote victory for the Speaker. So, we prepared ourselves for the Democratic vote staying just below the 40 it looked like we would need.

Suddenly just before the end of the voting, we saw that two or three Democrats who had voted NO were switching their votes to YES.

Then, all but three of the rest of the Republicans arrived and cast YES votes.

The Democratic tally went up to 40.

And then the dam burst, with the rest of the Democrats finally casting their votes, with most of them voting YES! Several more Democrats who had voted NO earlier now saw that the amendment was going to pass anyway and switched to YES because they knew their constituents would prefer a YES.

In those final frenzied minutes of voting, the tally went from around 205-205 to 259-167. A total of 38 Democrats changed from NO to YES. The number of Democrats voting for pro-border-enforcement went from 37 to 85. (I know what you are asking and the answer is that I don't know a way to find which 38 of the 85 YES-Democrats changed their votes after first voting NO.)

After our victory in approval of the Motion to Recommit, Rep. Grijalva accepted the language to guarantee no prohibitions on border enforcement and to make permanent a key highway checkpoint. After a series of quick parliamentary procedures, the bill came up for a vote and passed quickly, with the strong language intact. He could have avoided the whole controversy by allowing a vote on Rep. Bishop's amendment in committee. Rep. Grijalva claimed that the amendment was not needed and did not change anything about the bill. Perhaps sponsors of bills in the future will decide that it is just easier to accept our side's language that essentially verifies that what is promised on enforcement actualy happens.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership at the last minute messed up the original deal which had the Motion to Recommit being only about immigration. It added a small amount of language about another issue and ruined our ability to score the vote as a clear immigration vote on our Grade Cards. That is why you won't see the vote showing up in the individual records or the Members.

WHAT DID WE LEARN AND ACCOMPLISH?

First, we escaped a potential disaster in which much of southern Arizona would be largely off-limits to intense Border Patrol activity -- while becoming more and more ON-limits to drug trafficers and human smugglers.

Second, we sent a clear message to the Pelosi regime that it can't count on its Democratic Members to deliver majorities to the open-borders agenda.

I don't believe for a minute that Pelosi isn't able to continue to arm-twist, threaten and make promises to keep a lot of those 85 Democrats in line. But we learned today that 85 Democrats definitely want their constituents to see them on OUR side.

I also think most of the first 37 Democrats who voted YES not only need to be seen with us for political reasons but are philosophically with us. They WANT to be with us or they NEED to be with us so badly that they aren't going to be taking any dives for Speaker Pelosi.

For those entities trying to force Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid to bring comprehensive amnesty up for a vote, their job got a lot harder today. How does Pelosi get a majority for an amnesty when 85 Democrats wouldn't hold with her on an obscure issue that was getting ZERO media attention today?

Finally, we learned a lot about all of you in the NumbersUSA membership. This was a situation in which NONE of our allied organizations got involved in this brief 30-hour battle. NO talk radio show joined in the mobilization. NONE of the Members of Congress took to the airwaves to promote this Motion to Recommit.

THE ONLY ENTITY MOBILIZING AND PUBLICLY PROMOTING PASSAGE OF THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT TODAY was NumbersUSA's army of committed volunteer citizen activists.

THANKS,
Roy Beck

Bolton: Obama's U.N. Speech "Unpresidential"

---

Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton gives Fox News his opinion of President Obama's speech to the U.N.

Home Owners - BEWARE

Just received this absolutely must read from a friend

Apparently the current shell game is attempting to divert our attention away from Cap and Tax and focus our attention on the current issue that has us all up in arms, health  care.  Heads ups because there is more trouble coming our way, especially if we own a home.  Please read this. Beck has already revealed the Appollo Alliance wrote the 1100 word health care bill the House has passed without reading.  I'm wondering who wrote this disaster of a bill which is 1428 pages long (a bit overwhelming)  aimed at total control of home owners.  NB

You must take time to read these...Our government at work

This is really frightening, but it hasn’t received that much press yet since everyone is still haggling over the health care fiasco.  Also, most of the media that has addressed “cap and trade” has focused on the effect it will have on corporations – not individual homeowners.  The full bill is on the link below, but the shorter summary below the link gives you enough to make you sick – very sick.  WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES – NOW. This bill is only 1428 pages long… The House passed it without reading and it is in the Senate now.  Here is the link for the bill;  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454pcs.txt.pdf  Wow!  Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!!! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. YOUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT AT WORK...............    More change you can believe in.....The Cap and Trade bill passed in the House and now is in the Senate. A lot has been said about the enormous tax hit and energy price hikes to every tax payer that will follow this bill, but not much has been leaked about the impact on your ability to sell and maintain your home.  Hah, gotcha.  Read on..... H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill was passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.   But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read.....this is the one the Dems hired a speed reader to read aloud, has many more surprises in it.   Probably the worst one is this:  A year from now you may not be able to sell your house.   Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (mobile homes) are included.   In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator (Czar).   To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.  (ahhh..there was a time when we didn't pay annual license fees on cars...does this sound a bit familiar?)   The EPA Czar, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.   Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America . Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that's YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in."   Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act." This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year. Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label periodically - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started:  that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.   Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards. REMEMBER TO VOTE IN THE NEXT ELECTION WHICH IS 15 MONTHS AWAY!!!! ARE YOU FEELING THE SQUEEZE YET?????

Commanders back Afghan troop hike assessment

WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Central Command, Army General David Petraeus, said on Wednesday that both he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen had endorsed an assessment by the top commander in Afghanistan that says more troops would be needed.

"Obviously I endorsed, the chairman endorsed... Gen. (Stanley) McChrystal's assessment and description," Petraeus said at a counterinsurgency conference in Washington.

McConnell Blasts Government Over 'Gag Order' on Private Health Care Provider

from FoxNews.com

The federal government resorted to bullying tactics when it ordered an investigation of Humana -- one of the country's biggest private insurers -- for its decision to send customers a letter alerting them about pending health reform legislation, a leading Republican charged Wednesday.

Obama, at U.N., Sets New Tone for U.S.

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

NEW YORK -- President Barack Obama, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly for the first time, sought to distance his country from the era of his White House predecessor, vowing that "America will live by its values" on human rights even as he said he would take to task the abuses and failures of allies and foes alike.

In a half-hour speech that was greeted warmly by world leaders, the U.S. president outlined "four pillars" that he called "fundamental to the future that we want for our children" -- nuclear disarmament, Middle East peace, environmental restoration and economic growth. He chastised North Korea and Iran, warning of consequences if they do not back down from their nuclear programs. ....

Holdren says Constitution backs compulsory abortion Argued in writings: 'Quality of life demands fewer people'

Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all

Circus at the U.N.: Gadhafi floats swine flu-as-military weapon conspiracy, wishes “our son” Obama could be prez for life; “We shall send rolling thunder”

Pakistan, after being paid billions by the U.S. to fight terror (and giving much of it to jihadists), wants the U.S. to reimburse it

(Analyst's note:  If I'd not seen this request with my own eyes --- is one of the most monumental chutzpah alerts I've ever heard.  Absolutely must read.)

from Robert Spencer

"For such efforts, Musharraf and the Pakistani government have been paid handsomely, receiving more than $10 billion in American money since 2001....For years, the survival of Pakistan's military and civilian leaders has depended on a double game: assuring the United States that they were vigorously repressing Islamic militants -- and in some cases actually doing so -- while simultaneously tolerating and assisting the same militants." -- New York Times, September 7, 2008 

Monumental Chutzpah Alert: the U.S. paid Pakistan to fight against the jihadis, Pakistan funneled much of the money to the same jihadis, and now Pakistan wants to get reimbursed. How long are we going to let Pakistan drain us before we realize they are not on our side?

"Pakistan: President urges US to reimburse $1.6 bn for terror war," from AKI, September 23 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Islamabad, 23 Sept. (AKI/DAWN) - Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari has urged the United States government to reimburse the 1.6 billion dollars that Pakistan spent on fighting extremism in the tribal areas earlier this year.

The United States pays Pakistan for the anti-extremist operations from a special account called the Coalition Support Fund. Pakistan has not been paid for more than a year, Pakistani daily Dawn said.

President Zardari made this demand in two separate meetings with US officials including special envoy Richard Holbrooke.

President Zardari also called for an early realisation of about six billion dollars pledged to Pakistan in the Tokyo conference earlier this year where international donors promised to help Pakistan overcome its economic crisis.

The President also sought an early adoption of the Kerry-Lugar Bill that may bring in another 1.5 billion dollars of annual US assistance over a period of five years. ...

Hitler Sings The Jeffersons Theme

(Analyst's note:  Every now and then it is time to lighten it up - this is just such a time.  Please click on the title above and enjoy this YouTube video.)

At Pentagon's Request, Post Delayed Story on General's Afghanistan Report

(Analyst's note:  Sounds "fishy" to me that one day would make such a great difference in such a request - I report, you decide.)

 

By Howard Kurtz

To Bob Woodward, it was the modern-day equivalent of the Pentagon Papers. But to Obama administration officials, the classified assessment of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, if disclosed by The Washington Post, represented a potential threat to the safety of U.S. troops.


The result was that The Post agreed to a one-day delay in publicizing the report by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and that the paper's top editor engaged in a lengthy discussion Sunday with three top Defense Department officials in a meeting at the Pentagon.

The Post published the report, which Woodward had obtained, on Monday.

Woodward said in an interview Tuesday that four White House and administration officials strongly objected to the publication of the full report, telling him, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli and a Post lawyer in a conference call on Saturday that "if we publish it as is, it could endanger the lives of troops."

After the Pentagon meeting Sunday with Brauchli, Woodward and Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, administration officials "did a wholesale declassification of 98 percent" of the document, Woodward said, while The Post agreed to withhold certain operational details. That, Woodward said, "made it easier" for the newspaper to proceed with publication without risking criticism for disclosing classified information.

Brauchli declined to comment. Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti said the paper "agreed to redact certain material from the document. . . . The Pentagon then produced a version of the document with the agreed redactions and released it back to us declassified. We posted that version online, after confirming its accuracy." ....

Still Handling Homeland Security With a 9/10 Attitude

Michelle Malkin

Terror suspect Najibullah Zazi has done us all a favor. But is it enough to rouse a nation in permanent snooze-button mode?

The arrest of Zazi, a Colorado-based Afghan airport shuttle driver who counterterrorism officials believe may have been plotting bomb attacks on New York City mass transit trains, raised alerts on rail lines across the country. A joint FBI-Department of Homeland Security assessment issued Monday warned law enforcement agencies about the use of improvised explosive devices against passenger trains overseas. Zazi was allegedly trained in manufacturing liquid explosives with hydrogen peroxide -- the same material used in the London subway attacks in 2005. FBI/DHS analysts have recommended random sweeps and patrols at rail stations and terminals as deterrents.

The bust reminded America that while the annual September 11 memorials are over, the jihadi threat looms. Yet, homeland security remains crippled by a 9/10 mentality.

Remember: The New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the New York Police Department a few years ago to try to stop random bag searches. The civil liberties absolutists are against random searches because they constitute "unreasonable" invasions of privacy. They're against targeted searches because they amount to racial, religious or ethnic "profiling." And they're against across-the-board searches because they lack "individualized suspicion."

The ACLU homeland security strategy: Do nothing.

The suit against NYPD's random bag search policy ultimately failed, but litigation both real and threatened continues to tie the hands of homeland security and law enforcement officials. This summer, a judge cleared the way for a lawsuit against federal and Minneapolis airport officers by the infamous "flying imams." They are the six Muslim clerics whose suspicious behavior -- fanning out in the cabin before take-off, refusing to sit in their assigned seats, requesting seat-belt extenders, which they placed on the floor -- led to their removal by a U.S. Airways crew in 2006.

The feds rejected the imams' attempt to shake down the airline with a discrimination lawsuit. But three years later, law enforcement officers are still battling the flying extortionists. Political correctness remains the handmaiden of terrorism.

Over at the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder is committed to eliminating racial "disparities" in law enforcement. His anti-profiling allies at the ACLU and something called the "Rights Working Group" are working to end Bush administration counterterrorism initiatives, "including FBI surveillance and questioning, special registration programs, border stops, immigration enforcement programs and the creation of 'no fly lists.'" The ACLU and RWG have appealed to the United Nations to intervene through the "U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)" -- which they say is empowered to require sovereign governments "to review national, state and local policies and amend or repeal laws deemed to be creating or perpetuating discrimination."

Now, add anti-gun activism and stubborn union squabbling to the mix. As I reported two weeks ago, the Obama administration has quietly gutted the nation's most highly trained post-9/11 counterterrorism rail security team. According to multiple government sources who declined to be identified for fear of retribution, the Office of Security Strategy and Special Operations' East Coast and West Coast teams have not worked in a counterterrorism capacity since the summer. Their rifles were put under lock and key after Amtrak Vice President for Security Strategy and Special Operations Bill Rooney and Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold, who played an instrumental role in creating OSSSO's predecessor at Amtrak, the Counter-Terrorism Unit (CTU), were pushed out by Team Obama.

Amtrak confirmed to me last week that the elite members of the specialized OSSSO no longer carry long-arm weapons, which played a vital role in the unit's show-of-force patrols. Government sources blame anti-gun hostility inside Amtrak for the move. Amtrak also confirmed to me that West Coast members of the rail security unit -- most of whom come from Special Forces, counterterrorism and other military service -- have been denied police credentials. According to OSSSO sources on both coasts, the rival Amtrak Police Department, in conjunction with the local police union in California, have stymied the process over labor issues (OSSSO members are non-union).

"Amtrak fully expects to have a resolution in the near future," I was told by the rail agency's press office last week. In the meantime, according to a high-ranking homeland security source, Amtrak's unionized police chief has taken over and makes counterterrorism deployment decisions based on pay squabbles. The rail agency is still dealing with grievances filed by Amtrak police officers over compensation during the Democratic National Convention in Denver

.

Says my rail security source: "The deciding factor is overtime, not security."

Dickering while jihadis plot. Feel safer yet?

FBI Issues Warnings For Stadiums, Hotels & Transit

(Analyst's note:  Thought you'd like to know this troubling information.)

from CBS

Counterterrorism officials have issued security bulletins to police around the nation about terrorists' desire to attack stadiums, entertainment complexes and hotels -- the latest in a flurry of such internal warnings as investigators chase a possible bomb plot in Denver and New York.

In the two bulletins -- sent to police departments Monday and obtained by The Associated Press -- officials said they know of no specific plots against such sites, but urged law enforcement and private companies to be vigilant. These two bulletins followed on the heels of a similar warning about the vulnerabilities of mass transit systems.

The bulletin on stadiums notes that an al-Qaida training manual specifically lists "blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin... and attacking vital economic centers" as desired targets of the global terror network.

Despite the three federal warnings, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters on Tuesday that local law enforcements were not aware of any specific threats to the city or its neighboring areas. ....

Al Qaeda Releases Video With The Usual Threats

Al Qaeda released a 106-minute Arabic language video Tuesday titled "The West... and The Dark Tunnel" featuring Al Qaeda's second in command Ayman al-Zawahiri predicting the downfall of Barack Obama.

Officials Worried NY Terror Plot “Still Alive”

By RICHARD ESPOSITO and BRIAN ROSS

Law enforcement officials say the alleged terror plot against New York City may be "still alive" despite the arrest of its alleged ringleader, 24-year-old Najibullah Zazi of Denver, Colorado.

The FBI closes in on alleged terror cells here in the U.S.

Did Botched Terrorism Probe Lead To Early Arrests

(Analyst's note:  Troubling)

Gerald Posner’s (The Daily Beast) investigative report focuses on the culmination of the year long terror probe and says FBI agents are fuming at New York Police Department detectives for inadvertently causing them to miss an opportunity to take down even more members of the alleged terror cell.
From The Article at The Daily Beast

Following a year-long probe, federal agents on Saturday arrested 24-year-old Najibullah Zazi, in Aurora, Colorado, along with his father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, and 37-year-old Ahmad Wais Afzali, in Flushing, N.Y. But behind the scenes, the agents were furious at two detectives of the New York Police Department intelligence unit, whose actions, according to a source familiar with the case, scuttled the long-running probe and forced a raid earlier than planned, killing off any potentially bigger payoff had surveillance run longer.

The feds weren’t the only ones left steaming, says this source; also upset at the two NYPD detectives were their colleagues in the counterterrorism division, composed of more than 100 detectives who frequently work with the FBI on a Joint Terrorism Task Force. Federal investigators say any possibility of discovering whether the main suspect they were monitoring might have led to a larger sleeper cell inside the U.S. is lost. Also gone, say investigators, is the chance to see how al Qaeda planned its first post-9/11 U.S. attack, from support personnel to financing. ....

General McChrystal to Obama: More Troops Or I Quit!

by Dan McLaughlin (Profile)
If you are old enough to remember the George W. Bush Administration and the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, you will recall that a favorite theme of critics of Bush’s war management was that Bush hadn’t listened to Army brass asking for more troops in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. In particular, the Democrats practically made a secular saint of General Eric Shinseki, who supposedly was fired for delivering this message. (The truth is rather different, but the media has been printing the legend for so long it’s hardly worth the candle at this late date to argue the point). Gen. Shinseki even ended up being given a Cabinet post in the Obama Administration for little other reason than as a symbol that Obama would break from his predecessor by following his subordinates’ recommendations.

Well, as we so often have reason to say of Obama’s campaign rhetoric, that was then and this is now. And we are learning that listening to requests from his commanders for more troops is not Obama’s strong suit as Commander-in-Chief.


First, Obama scaled back the U.S. troop commitment. Obama during the campaign had promised more troops for Afghanistan, where the U.S. had approximately 36,000 troops and was relying heavily on training the Afghan military to supplement U.S. and NATO forces. In November 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates had indicated that some 30,000 troops would be sent to Afghanistan, and the 30,000 figure was requested by General David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan (he reports to General David Petraeus). Instead, Obama reduced the force to some 17,000 additional U.S. counterinsurgency troops - barely more than half what General McKiernan had requested - plus an additional 7,000 troops for other functions. But Obama’s national security advisor, General James Jones, bluntly warned the military brass that further requests for more troops would upset the White House:

Now suppose you’re the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel?

Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.

Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have “a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment.” Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF - which in the military and elsewhere means “What the [expletive]?” .... please read the balance of the article by clicking on the title above.

.... But in Barack Obama we have not only a president who came to office pledging to pay more attention to his military leaders, and not only one who keeps insisting that the mission in Afghanistan is one of urgent importance to U.S. national security, but also a man with absolutely zero prior experience as an executive, no military service record, and zero experience with national security issues. One might reasonably expect him to permit an open exchange of views by his commanders and to give very, very serious weight to their opinions, rather than telling people to withdraw recommendations and running through generals like George Steinbrenner through managers. ...