Iraqi suicide bomber was Gitmo detainee

Ronald Fiddler blew himself up at an Iraqi army base near Mosul this week. Fiddler, a British citizen who changed his name to Jamal al-Harith after converting to Islam in the 1990s, was also a former detainee at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

According to the report in the Times of London and USA Today, al-Harith was captured by Coalition Forces in a Taliban prison in Afghanistan in 2001. When it was discovered that he had links to Osama bin Laden, he served two years in the Gitmo facility until being released in 2004 at the request of the government of Tony Blair. He was later paid compensation of 1 million pounds, about $1.25 million, for his detention.

In a statement, Blair, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, said, “It is correct that Jamal al-Harith was released from Guantanamo Bay at the request of the British Government in 2004. He was not paid compensation by my Government. The compensation was agreed in 2010 by the Conservative Government [of David Cameron].”

Blair continued, “The fact is that this was always a very difficult situation where any Government would have to balance proper concern for civil liberties with desire to protect our security, and we were likely to be attacked whatever course we took.”

Al-Harith was not the first Gitmo detainee to return to terror after being released. According to Military.com, a report released last year showed that, of 161 prisoners released by the Obama Administration, at least nine were confirmed to be “directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities.” The Bush Administration released 532 Gitmo prisoners and 113 of these were reported to have rejoined terrorist groups.

Al-Harith, who was 50, traveled to Syria to join ISIS is 2014 where he went by the name Abu-Zakariya al-Britani. It is not known whether al-Harith gave the compensation received from the British government to ISIS.

ISIS announced al-Harith as a suicide bomber and released a picture of him, apparently taken just before his death, sitting in a four-wheel-drive truck with a big smile on his face. The terrorist group claimed that his attack caused multiple casualties, but the exact number is not known.

“It is him, I can tell by his smile,” al-Harith’s brother, Leon Jameson, told the Times. “If it is true then I’ve lost a brother, so another family [member is] gone.” Jameson added that his brother had “wasted his life.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Cruz Strip citizenship of American terrorists

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has introduced legislation to strip the citizenship of Americans who knowingly fight for or support terrorist groups. Cruz argues that his Expatriate Terrorist Act, which is cosponsored in the House by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), is a vital step in the war against Islamic terror. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) are also cosponsoring the bill.

“The Expatriate Terrorist Act will ensure that any American who forfeits their country to intentionally join ISIS will have their citizenship stripped and won’t be able to use a U.S. passport to come back and murder American citizens," Cruz said in a statement.

The bill would amend the existing law that details the conditions under which a US citizen can renounce his citizenship. Current law forfeiting citizenship would be amended “to include becoming a member of, fighting for, or providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.” It would also allow the government “to deny or revoke passports to anyone who is a member, or attempting to become a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization.”

“Provided the requirements of due process are observed, if a United States citizen undertakes these acts with the intent of supplanting his United States citizenship with loyalty to a terrorist organization, that person can be deemed to have forfeited his or her right to be a United States citizen and return to the United States,” Cruz’s statement said.

There have been a number of American citizens who have joined terrorist groups. John Walker Lindh was an American member of the Taliban who was captured in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11. About a dozen Americans are known to have joined ISIS. A number of terrorist attacks, including the Boston Marathon bombing, the Orlando nightclub shooting and the San Bernardino rampage, were carried out by US citizens.  

This is not the first time that the Expatriate Terrorist Act has been proposed. In fact, the bill has been introduced to Congress at least twice. In 2014 and 2015, Cruz and King introduced versions of the legislation that died in committee. A similar bill proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.) and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) died in 2010.

Critics of the bill argue that it is not necessary or constitutional. Writing in National Review in 2015, Gabriel Malor said, “Citizenship is not a mere privilege. It is a right specifically protected by the Constitution. Congress cannot simply decide that individuals lose their citizenship when they commit certain acts. Rather, to strip a person’s citizenship requires that the government prove not only that he committed an act deemed expatriating by Congress but that he did so knowingly and voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish his citizenship.”

Malor continues, arguing that the Supreme Court has ruled on the question, “In the words of Justice White, writing for the Supreme Court when this issue was settled decades ago, ‘in the last analysis, expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct’” (Vance v. Terrazas, 1980).

In Reason, Shikha Dalmia wrote, “If the government has evidence that these folks are indeed terrorists, then why should it merely strip them of their citizenship and stop them from returning home (or leaving if they are already here)? Why shouldn't it also prosecute them? And if it doesn't have evidence, then why should they face any consequences at all?”

The danger, Dalmia wrote, was that the language of the bill gives “government the power to take away the citizenship not of Americans against whom it actually has hard evidence—but against whom it doesn't. In other words, the point is to revoke the citizenship not of known but merely suspected terrorists.”

If revocation of citizenship is to only be applied punitively to convicted terrorists, there are different issues. “If the courts were to decide that the expatriation of terrorists was intended to be a punitive act rather than a security measure,” Malor wrote, “a different and more stringent series of constitutional prohibitions come into play, including the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections for criminal defendants.”

On the surface, stripping the citizenship of terrorists seems to be a common sense idea. Upon closer examination, however, there are many questions of practicality and constitutionality that must be addressed. Those lingering questions mean that the bill probably has little chance of becoming law in the near future.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Yemen suicide attack may have been intended for US warship

A Saudi frigate was attacked by Yemeni rebels in the Red Sea on Monday. Now Fox News is reporting that the attack, which left two Saudi sailors dead and three wounded, may have been intended for a US Navy warship.

The Saudi ship was originally believed to have been hit by a missile fired by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Based on a video of the attack, officials now believe that the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber in a small boat. This is similar to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 which was carried out in the Yemeni port of Aden and killed 17 US sailors.

Fox reports that on the video of Monday’s attack, a voice can be heard shouting in Arabic, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to the Jews.” The recording prompted US defense analysts to believe that the attack may have been carried out as a practice run for an attack on a US ship or that the Saudi ship may have been misidentified as an American ship.

American ships do inhabit the Red Sea waters near Yemen. Last October, the USS Mason and the USS Ponce were attacked by anti-ship missiles in the same area. The USNI News reported that the Mason fired three defensive SM-2 missiles and a single Evolved Seasparrow missile to destroy the attacking Houthi missiles.

It is also possible that Monday’s attack was meant for the Saudi ship. Saudi Arabia leads a coalition of Gulf states in an intervention in Yemen to support Yemen’s government in its civil war. Yemen’s government is fighting al-Qaeda as well as the Houthi tribesmen, who are backed by Iran.

If Iran uses its proxy forces to attack an American ship, it would be a dramatic escalation scarcely a week after President Trump’s inauguration. The suicide attack came just as Iran launched a medium-range missile test in violation of President Obama’s nuclear deal and a UN resolution.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Boston bombing exposes threat of homegrown Muslim terror

The Tsarnaev brothers’ brief reign of terror has shed light on a growing threat to the safety of Americans: homegrown Islamic terrorists. While the brothers were originally from Chechnya, their family had been in the U.S. for almost a decade according to the N.Y. Times. The brothers, age 15 and 8 at the time, were already Muslim but were almost certainly radicalized long after they became American immigrants.

Homegrown radicals are people who were either born in the United States or who immigrated here prior to becoming terrorists. In many cases, homegrown Islamic radicals become radicalized in isolation. Rather than attending mosques, they listen to and read sermons of radical mullahs on the internet. Many homegrown radicals were converted to radical Islam by the sermons of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in the U.S. He later fled to Yemen where he was killed in 2011 by a drone strike. Some homegrown radicals were born into Muslim families; others converted to Islam later in life.

Unlike some early post-9/11 attacks and arrests, homegrown terrorists are not always directly affiliated with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. They may not have traveled to Pakistan, Afghanistan, or other Middle Eastern countries for training. They often receive information from jihadist internet sites such as al Qaeda’s “Inspire” online magazine, but may not receive direct instructions from al Qaeda leaders. In some cases, al Qaeda may not even be aware of the homegrown radical’s existence.

One of the most famous instances of homegrown terrorism was the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in which Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people and wounded 32 others. After the attack, it was revealed that Hasan, a native Virginian, had been in email contact with Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan, who had attended the same mosque as two of the September 11 hijackers, reportedly jumped onto a desk and yelled, “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” before he began shooting.

Homegrown radical terrorists go back far further, however. In late 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo murdered 10 people in sniper attacks around the District of Columbia. The Baltimore Sun detailed how Malvo’s writings described the pair’s “jihad” against the United States even though prosecutors did not consider Islamic terrorism a motive. The N.Y. Times described how Muhammad planned to extort millions of dollars from authorities with their sniper attacks and then use the money to set up jihadist training camps and fund more attacks.

The list of unsuccessful terror attacks by homegrown terrorists is already long. In 2009, a Tennessee native and Muslim convert shot and killed a soldier at a recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark. Also in 2009, the FBI broke a terror ring in Raleigh, N.C. headed by an American convert to Islam. Another high profile homegrown terrorist plot was the attempt to blow up a Portland, Ore. Christmas tree lighting ceremony in 2010. The man had corresponded via email with Al Qaeda leaders prior to the attempt. An army private from Texas who attempted to bomb Fort Hood in 2011 had planned to use similar devices similar to those that the Tsarnaev brothers built. That same year two Arab-Americans plotted to attack synagogues in New York City. Also in 2011, a New York convert to Islam attempted to attack government buildings around Bayonne, N.J. with pipe bombs. In 2012, a Muslim convert from Brooklyn made death threats against the creators of “South Park” after the show depicted the prophet Mohammed. That same year a Massachusetts man plotted to bomb the Pentagon with a remote control airplane.

Georgia was home to at least one homegrown Islamic radical. In 2011, Jameela Barnette of Marietta mailed a bloody pig’s foot to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and a Curious George doll to Greg Ball, a state senator from New York. Ms. Barnette, who referred to herself as a “Messenger of Allah and Defender of Islam” told Examiner that her actions were based in her Muslim faith. She said that she believed that suicide bombings and terrorist attacks are justified. Barnette died on Christmas Day 2011 when she ambushed police officers with a gun and knife as they responded to a panic alarm in her home.

The problem of homegrown terrorism is not based on race or skin color. Ryan G. Anderson was a white Muslim convert and a U.S. Army National Guard tank crewman who tried to spy for Al Qaeda in 2003. According to the Defense Human Resources case study, Anderson told undercover agents, “I wish to desert from the U.S. Army. I wish to defect from the United States. I wish to join al-Qaeda, train its members and conduct terrorist attacks.”

Colleen LaRose, also known as “Jihad Jane,” was also a white Muslim convert. In 2009, LaRose received orders from Al Qaeda, again via the internet, to kill a Swedish artist who had blasphemed Mohammed by drawing his head on the body of a dog. LaRose worked with two other homegrown terrorists on the plot and actually traveled to Europe to stalk her prey. She was arrested when she returned to the U.S.

A World Opinion poll of Middle Eastern Muslims shows that an average of about 30 percent supports groups that attack Americans. According to a Pew poll of American Muslims, eight percent believe that suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified and five percent have a favorable view of al Qaeda.

The study estimates that there are approximately 1.5 million Muslims over the age of 18 in the U.S. Slightly more than half are males and approximately 30 percent of the males are 18-29 years old. Although there are female suicide bombers, the majority are young men and the 18-29 age group is a high risk category. If, of the estimated 243,000 young American Muslims, only five percent are potential radicals, that still leaves over 12,000 possible homegrown terrorists.

The Boston Marathon bombing may signal a new phase in the War on Terror in which al Qaeda takes full advantage of the resources provided by homegrown American radicals. In the years since September 11, the terrorist group has been unable to launch another successful attack in the United States. Several attempts at complex, coordinated attacks have been foiled by security agencies in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. The success of the low tech and simple assault in Boston may inspire al Qaeda to reassess its strategy, focusing instead on instigating large numbers of small attacks using homegrown bombers and gunmen.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/boston-bombing-exposes-threat-of-homegrown-radical-islam

Pressure cooker control

Boston bomber linked to radical Muslim cleric

The International Business Times reports that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the FBI’s Suspect Number One for the Boston Marathon Massacre who died today after an early morning gun battle with police, was influenced by a radical Muslim cleric in Australia. Tsarnaev’s Youtube channel contains numerous links to videos featuring Feiz Mohammad. Tsarnaev and Mohammad also apparently shared an interest in boxing.

Feiz Mohammad is a member of the fundamentalist Wahabi sect of Islam according to The Australian. In 2005, the police investigated Mohammad for his DVDs, the “Death Series” and “Signs of the Hour.” The Australian reports that the Australian Federal Police looked into whether the series broke sedition laws and incited violence. In the videos, Mohammad called Jews “pigs” and denounces non-Muslims as “kaffirs,” which he says is “the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt.” He also called upon Muslim children to “put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom.”

Mohammad is well known in Australia for blaming women for rapes in 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald quotes Mohammad as saying that rape victims had “no one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world…” with “strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature.”

In 2010, Mohammad gained international notoriety when he called for the beheading of a Dutch politician. Geert Wilders was the producer of a film that was critical of Islam. He also said that the prophet Mohammed was “a warlord, terrorist and pedophile” according to The Age.

According to the International Business Times, there are no known direct links between Mohammad and al Qaeda, but he has broadcast sermons from Anwar al-Awlaki, the group’s spiritual leader, on his website. Awlaki was killed by U.S. predator drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

Tsarnaev’s fascination with Feiz Mohammad provides a possible motive for the terrorist bombing in Boston earlier this week. As more information about the Tsarnaev brothers becomes known, their purpose in carrying out the attacks may become clear.

Originally published on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/boston-bomber-inspired-by-radical-muslim-preacher

Islamic links to Chechen terrorists in Boston are likely

Yesterday the FBI publicly released photos of the two men believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon massacre on April 15, which killed three people and left more than 100 wounded. Today, the FBI reported that one of the two men has been killed in a gun battle in Massachusetts. The men are reported to be brothers from the Chechen area of southern Russia by RT. Chechen radical Muslims are responsible for a long list of terror attacks. Given the nature of the attack and the history of recent attempted terrorist attacks in the United States, it is likely, although far from certain at this point, that the two men are Islamic radicals.

The two men are reported to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother, Tamerlan. Tamerlan was the suspect reportedly killed by police after a gun battle and car chase through Watertown, Mass. last night.

The nature of attacks suggests the possibility of involvement by Al Qaeda sources outside the United States as well. Bomb making is a very technical task, which may explain why many homegrown terrorists use weapons such as guns that are more readily available in the United States. The Pakistani immigrant who attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York’s Times Square in 2010 received explosives training in Pakistan, but the bomb still fizzled.

Bombings have long been a favorite tactic of Islamic terrorists and the tactic has come of age during the Iraq War. A common tactic has been to detonate a second bomb near the scene of the first explosion targeting security forces and rescue workers. The Boston attack included two bombs.

The nature of the bombs themselves also suggests Islamic terror. An army private who attempted to bomb Fort Hood in 2011 had planned to use similar devices. The plans for the bombs in both the Fort Hood plot and the Boston attack are available online in the Al Qaeda magazine, “Inspire.”

The target of the Boston bombings also suggests Islamic terror. While domestic secular terrorists sometimes do commit bombings, they usually have specific targets. Ku Klux Klan bombings targeted black churches. In the 1960s, the leftist Weather Underground targeted police and government buildings. Antigovernment terrorist Timothy McVeigh targeted the federal building in Oklahoma City. Eric Rudolph normally attacked abortion clinics, but on one occasion bombed a lesbian nightclub in Atlanta. He is best known for the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics. While the bomb was placed in a park, Rudolph called police with a warning before the bomb exploded in an apparent attempt to minimize the loss of life.

Islamic terror, however, often focuses on creating a large death toll. Public gatherings are popular targets for Islamic terrorists. Past targets include airliners, restaurants, subways, churches, synagogues, mosques, and crowded marketplaces. These targets are designed to make a political or religious statement by killing as many people as possible. This seems to have been the motivation of the Boston bombers.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/one-boston-terrorist-killed-islamic-terror-links-likely

“Harbinger” author to headline inaugural prayer breakfast

Jonathan Cahn, a controversial messianic rabbi, announced on his Facebook page today that he has been asked to be the keynote speaker at the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast on Jan. 21. Cahn is the rabbi of the Beth Israel Worship Center in Wayne, N.J. and president of the Hope of the World ministry. He is also the author of “The Harbinger,” a prophetic novel that details Cahn’s belief that the United States is receiving divine warnings as a prelude to judgment.

“The Harbinger” centers around Isaiah 9:10, a verse in which the ancient Israelites vowed to rebuild stronger than before in the aftermath of an Assyrian attack. Cahn finds many parallels between modern America and ancient Israel.

According to Cahn, the process of divine judgment begins with the removal of God’s protective “hedge” to open the nation to attack. In the case of both nations, the removal of God’s protection led to an attack by terrorists. In Israel’s case, the attack was by the Assyrians in 732 B.C. In America’s case, it was by al Qaeda on 9/11.

In both cases, the attack was followed by defiance. The Israelites made the vow found in Isaiah: “The bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed stone; the fig trees have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars.” Put simply, they would take what was destroyed and replace it with something even better rather than repenting of their sins.

Ironically, this obscure Old Testament verse with its vow of defiance was used not once, but twice by American leaders in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. On Sept. 12, 2001, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle quoted the verse in a speech to congress where he specifically linked the verse to America. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2004, Sen. John Edwards, then a vice presidential candidate, again invoked the verse in a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus. On February 24, 2009, President Obama echoed the defiant tone of the verse, saying in his address to Congress, “I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.” The book cites many other striking similarities between ancient history and modern news.

Other confirmed guests at the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast include Chaplain of the U.S. House Father Patrick Conroy, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Eric Cantor, and Sen. Roy Blunt. Worship music will be provided by Jeremiah and Wendy Ginsberg and the Philadelphia Tabernacle of David. It is not known whether President Obama will attend.

Tickets to the event are available to the public. They can be purchased online at http://pipb2013.eventbrite.com/ or by calling (804) 971—0414. Limited tickets will be available at the door.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/author-of-book-on-judgment-of-u-s-will-headline-inaugural-prayer-breakfast?cid=db_articles&no_cache=1357424951

Voters need truth about Benghazi cover-up before election

An emerging aspect to the Benghazi attack story is the Obama Administration’s cover-up of the truth. From the beginning, President Obama and members of his administration have claimed that the attack was the spontaneous work of a mob protesting an anti-Islamic film. It is now apparent that the Administration knew even as the attacks were going on that it was a preplanned terrorist attack.

For over a week after the attack, President Obama and other government officials clung to the fiction that the attack was a reaction to “Innocence of the Muslims,” a film ridiculing Mohammed that had already been on Youtube for months. Charles Woods, the father of Ty Woods, one of the Americans killed in the attack, told radio host Lars Larson that Secretary of State Clinton vowed to have the filmmaker “arrested” and “prosecuted” in apparent disregard for the First Amendment.

In a timeline of the attacks and their aftermath posted on Oct. 26, Factcheck.org points out some of the flaws in the Administration’s claims. There was no mob at the Benghazi consulate in spite of President Obama’s claims to the contrary. State Department reports say that everything was calm until the attack started at approximately 3:40 p.m. At 6:07 p.m., while the attack was still in process, the State Department Operations Center emailed the White House and the Pentagon as well as several other agencies to tell them that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack. The attack continued until about 8:30 p.m. when Libyan security forces drove off the surviving attackers. The attack continued for approximately four to five hours.

Even though there were reports of al Qaeda involvement even while the attack was still in progress, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, and other Administration officials persisted in blaming the film for over a week after the attack. There is no reasonable reason to deny al Qaeda’s involvement for national security reasons since the fact that there was no mob was common knowledge in Libya. The only logical reason to shift the blame to Youtube and away from al Qaeda is for President Obama’s political benefit.

Examiner previously described reports that the Obama Administration denied requests to increase security before the attack. Now there are reports that requests for assistance during the attack were denied as well. Fox News reports that CIA operators were denied permission to assist the Americans under attack inside the consulate. The unnamed sources “on the ground in Benghazi” said that a small team heard the shots from a safe house and requested permission to help. They were ordered to “stand down,” but several members of the team, including former Navy SEAL Ty Woods, ignored the order and were able to evacuate survivors from the consulate, possibly preventing even greater loss of life.

When they returned, the safe house itself came under attack. The CIA team again called for help and were again denied. The Fox News report indicates that a team member on the roof with a laser target designator asked for an airstrike by an AC-130 Spectre gunship. More than seven hours after the initial attack began, a mortar attack on the CIA safe house killed Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, another former SEAL.

The Fox report notes that the CIA denied the report. “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," said spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

The Fox report also states that two American surveillance drones were on the scene during the attack. In spite of the fact that these drones could send real time information and video to Washington, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that officials had no clear idea of what was going on and could not provide assistance.

As yet unconfirmed are reports that General Carter Ham, commanding officer of the U.S. Africa Command, was relieved of his command because he was about to ignore orders not to help the Americans in Benghazi. Rumors are swirling that the general had a rapid response unit ready to go when he was ordered to stand down. The general responded that he was going to aid the consulate anyway. Less than thirty seconds later, the general’s executive officer relieved him and assumed command. The rescue mission did not take place. Defense Secretary Panetta previously claimed that Ham advised against a rescue mission.

Coverage of the rumor in the Washington Times notes that the Pentagon claims that Ham’s removal was planned in advance. Nevertheless, the article also states that Ham was in his post for only a year and a half. The normal tour length for such a command post is three years.

The reports of the circumstances surrounding General Ham’s dismissal are unconfirmed at this point, but given the other untruths coming from President Obama and his Administration they are plausible. In contrast to Obama’s claims that a Libyan mob killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, it now appears that the only Libyan mob was the one that found Stevens, at that point still alive, in the ruins of the consulate and took him to the hospital according to the Associated Press. At that point, U.S. and Libyan relief forces were still not on the scene.

Mark Thiessen of the Washington Post reported on Sept. 13 that the president’s public schedule showed that the last “daily” intelligence briefing that the president received was on Sept.5, more than a week before the attack. A spokesman for the National Security Council did point out that a printed copy of the President’s Daily Briefing is delivered to the president every day.

Additionally, the Long War Journal reports that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and al Qaeda member was involved in the attack. Sufyan ben Qumu was transferred to Libyan custody in 2007. He was released by Qaddafi’s government in 2010.

On Friday, in response to repeated questions about the allegations, the president answered as quoted by USA Today, “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

The FBI team dispatched to investigate the attack did not arrive in Libya until Oct. 4, three weeks after the attack. According to the New York Times, the Obama Administration blamed the delay on the Libyan government.

The investigation of the entire Benghazi matter is ongoing, but will not be complete until after the election. This is unacceptable. Voters deserve to know the truth about the attack in Benghazi and they should know before the election.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/voters-deserve-truth-about-benghazi-cover-up-before-election?cid=db_articles

White House treatment of Arizona is election issue

In the wake of this week’s Supreme Court decision striking down parts of the controversial Arizona immigration law, the White House announced President Obama’s decision to unilaterally cancel agreements between the federal government and seven Arizona law enforcement agencies. These “287 (g)” agreements had allowed state officials to request that federal officials pick up illegal immigrants held in state and local jails. Previously, the federal government had also allowed state officials to ask federal agencies to check the immigration status of people who were arrested or stopped for traffic violations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling upheld this cooperation between state and federal agencies, but, according to the Daily Caller, administration officials say that Arizona will not be allowed to transfer illegal aliens to federal custody unless they are felons or are known to have recently crossed the border. The practical effect of the White House announcement is to invalidate Arizona’s ability to check immigration status.

The Supreme Court ruling largely invoked the pre-eminence of federal law, but President Obama is choosing not to enforce those same laws. Essentially, President Obama is ignoring federal immigration law and is preventing the states from taking action to protect their own borders and citizens.

The move is apparently an attempt to punish Arizona for enacting its own immigration law against the Obama Administration’s wishes. Several other states have enacted similar legislation that allows state and local police to check the immigration status of suspects and detain illegal aliens. Georgia passed an immigration bill modeled on the Arizona law in 2011.

The move by the White House, together with its announcement last week that it would not deport illegal aliens who entered the U.S. as children, is an obvious attempt to solidify Obama’s support in the Latino community. The president might be disappointed in the results. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 12 percent of Hispanic registered voters view immigration as the most important issue. Healthcare, unemployment, the economy and the gap between rich and poor all rank higher.

The president’s unilateral policy also states that the Department of Homeland Security would issue work visas to the affected young people. President Obama lacks the authority under the Constitution to issue these visas since only Congress is granted the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” and “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” In any case, since the policy was established by an executive order and not by act of Congress, it is unlikely to last long past the election.

President Obama’s decision not to take border security seriously is a gamble with national security. According to Customs and Border Patrol data obtained by CNS News, agents apprehended 255 illegal aliens from “special interest countries” along the southwestern border in 2011. These included people from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Somalia and Sudan, all countries “that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members” according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Obama’s moves may cost him support in other areas. A Pew poll from June 2012 showed that 70 percent of Americans believe that border security should be the first priority or equal in importance to a pathway to citizenship for illegals. This may explain why the president’s approval index by Rasmussen has dropped by six points over the past week.

Aside from the immigration question, the unilateral move is another in a series of executive power grabs by President Obama. His decision not to enforce constitutional laws that were duly passed by Congress may not play well with Americans who value the objective rule of law over the subjective whims of whoever happens to reside in the Oval Office.

In traditional American government, Congress, the legislative branch, makes the laws and the president, the executive branch, enforces them. Short of a judicial ruling that forces him to carry out the duties of his office, Congress cannot make President Obama do his job. Generally, if a president does not like the law as it is written, he works with his allies in Congress to pass new laws, not simply announce that the law will no longer be enforced.

The ultimate control over the executive branch lies in the hands of the electorate. If voters believe that President Obama is not doing his duty as president, they may well decide that his contract does not deserve to be renewed for another four years.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-non-enforcement-of-immigration-law-is-election-issue

Republicans are wrong on immigration

When the discussion about securing the border started five years ago, it was tied to national security concerns. In the midst of a global war against Islamic terrorists, it seemed unwise to many to leave our long borders with Mexico and Canada unmanned and undefended for much of their length.

Some of the concerns were prompted by Ahmed Ressam, the attempted Millennium bomber from 1999, who attempted to enter the U.S. from Canada where he had refugee status. Ressam, an Algerian, was arrested by alert border guards in Washington state.

There have long been similar worries about terrorist groups seeking to enter the U.S. through Mexico. A 2003 report by the Library of Congress Federal Research Division noted that a Mexican national security advisor and U.N. ambassador had stated “Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge.” These fears may have come close to realization recently. On October 11, 2011 the U.S. government reported that it had disrupted a plot by the Iranian government to use Mexican narco-terrorists to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C.

While the threat is real, the Republican reaction is misguided. The “secure the borders” movement quickly turned into an anti-immigrant movement in some quarters. Illegal aliens were portrayed as people who snuck across the border to take American jobs and government benefits. Harsh rhetoric allowed the left to paint Republicans as racist and may have helped to tip the scales toward Obama in the 2008 election when Hispanics voted Democratic by more than two-to-one. That image was reinforced when a handful of states, including Georgia, passed state laws to further restrict illegal immigration in response to a perceived failure of the federal government to address the problem.

In reality the federal government began cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants under the Bush Administration. Under President Obama, the federal government has deported over one million illegal immigrants, almost as many as during George Bush’s two terms according to Reuters.

Further, as the economy crashed and jobs disappeared, illegal immigration began to disappear as well. CNN reports that arrests of illegal immigrants at the border dropped by 58 percent between 2006 and 2011. This was largely due to fact that the economy and increased numbers of border patrol agents deterred would-be immigrants from attempting to cross the border in the first place.

Now the effects of these policies are becoming evident. Georgia farmers were short by as many as two-thirds of their normal number of hired hands according to the Atlanta Journal. Farmers attempted to replace immigrant labor with unemployed local workers but had little luck because the work was temporary, hot, and physically demanding. Some farmers resorted to paying signing bonuses to pickers. Farmers in California, Idaho, Oklahoma, Washington, Vermont and Alabama have similar problems.

A recent Wall Street Journal article cites a University of Georgia study which found that Georgia lost $391 million and 3,260 full-time jobs that were dependent upon the crops harvested by the illegal immigrant laborers. These jobs were in industries such as food production, packaging and transportation. Factcheck.org cites several studies that show that immigrants – legal and illegal – create as many jobs as they occupy and actually have an upward impact on the wages of American citizens.

Nevertheless, in the Republican debates immigration remains a big issue even though illegal immigration is on the decline. The preoccupation with illegal immigrants may cost the Republicans the votes of many conservative Hispanics who would otherwise vote against President Obama and his failed economic initiatives.

Republican candidates should refocus the debate toward national security and away from the otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. Like the ancestors of most natural-born U.S. citizens, immigrants, legal or otherwise, merely want to come to the United States to make better lives for themselves. Many come from countries where there are even fewer jobs than in the U.S. and where the political climate is one in which policy debates turn violent easily and often.

Waves of anti-immigrant opinion have periodically swept through America. At one time or another, the Irish, the Catholics, the Chinese, Japanese, Eastern Europeans and others have found cold receptions in the U.S. These immigrants gradually gained acceptance by assimilating into the “melting pot” of cultures. A major problem today is that the diversity movement actually discourages assimilation and promotes maintaining separate cultures.

Much of the anti-immigrant fervor will likely fade as the economy recovers and unemployment declines. This will not resolve the national security issue, however. It is this aspect of the border issue that the Republicans should focus on.

The best solution to the border issue seems to be a multi-faceted solution. In some areas, a fence is needed. In others, where terrain makes a fence impractical, remote sensors can monitor and alert Border Patrol agents to human activity.

The farm situation from 2011 shows that just staunching the flow of illegal immigrants is not enough. The economy has grown dependent upon labor from migrant workers, many of whom are in the country illegally. If these jobs cannot be filled by Americans when the unemployment rate is over nine percent, they likely will not be filled by Americans at all. A similar gap exists with high end, skilled labor jobs where immigrants come to the U.S. to study but have difficulty getting a visa to stay and work after they graduate. These American educated, highly skilled workers often end up working in other countries for companies that compete with American business.

A lesson of the Georgia farm labor fiasco is that restrictions on illegal immigration must be accompanied by immigration reforms that make it easier for workers to come into the U.S. legally. In this situation everyone would win: The foreign workers could earn money to support their families, American employers would have workers, and the government would be able to keep track of who was entering the country. Additionally, this would expand the tax base by bringing the black market wages for illegal immigrant labor into the light.

Attacking immigrants is likely to backfire on Republicans. A better alternative is to propose a revamped immigration system that will bring much needed workers into the U.S. economy while at the same time securing our national borders against terrorists.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/republicans-are-wrong-on-immigration

9/11: The good, the bad and the evil

September 11 marks the dividing line between the carefree prosperity of the ‘90s and the 2000’s, a decade plagued by war, fear, and financial hardship. While the date, September 11, 2001, will be remembered as a day of infamy, there were many aspects and reactions to the attacks.

When most Americans think of the good of 9/11, they think of the courageous police and firefighters and their self sacrifice. In all, 343 firefighters and 72 police officers from across New York died in the World Trade Center collapse. Many of them were helping injured and frightened people escape the towers and died when the towers collapsed around them. One of the first casualties of the attack was FDNY Chaplain Mychal Judge. Father Mike was hit by falling debris and killed while administering last rites to victim. The picture of four firefighters carrying Father Mike’s body is an iconic image of 9/11. John wrote in the Bible, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13).

More good was done in the days after the attacks. Americans across the country turned out to give blood to help the survivors of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Volunteers and fire crews from all across America came to New York to help in the recovery operation at Ground Zero. For a few brief moments, America was more united in the wake of the attacks than it had been since World War II. The story of the heroic resistance of the passengers on United Flight 93 inspired the whole country.

There was no shortage of badness on 9/11. Indeed, that is why the day is remembered. The hijackers subscribed a religious belief that it is more honorable to kill, destroy, and die than to live and create. To the hijackers and their murderous leaders in al Qaeda, killing thousands of innocent people without provocation or warning was as acceptable as killing animals.

Osama bin Laden railed against America, largely without being noticed, for years before 9/11. He likened the U.S. military to latter day “crusaders” in a 1996 fatwa. Bin Laden believed that the American withdrawals in the wake of terror attacks in Beirut, Yemen, and Somalia meant that “the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear.” Bin Laden believed that his hijackers could exploit that weakness on American home soil and drive westerners from Muslim countries. To that end, he indoctrinated his followers with promises of paradise as a reward for killing Americans: “Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting someone else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you.”

When the hijackers took control of the four airliners, it was with the belief that murder was their path to heaven. When they slit the throat of the flight attendants to gain access to the cockpits, it was in a vain attempt to save their own souls. When they crashed the planes into their targets, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” it was an attempt to secure their own salvation. In a sense, the 2,996 victims of Osama bin Laden and his men were paying for the sins of the hijackers. Their deaths were celebrated by much of the Muslim world. In the Quran, Surat al Maideh 32 says, “if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind.”

The victims included six Georgians. Maynard Spence of Douglasville, Harshad Thatte of Norcross, Adam White of Atlanta, and Claude Michael Gann of Roswell died in the World Trade Center.  Leslie Whittington of Atlanta died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.  U.S. Army Maj. Steve Long of Georgia died in the Pentagon.

The 9/11 attacks are symbolic of the evil in the hearts of men. They remind us that even though mankind is civilized, we are still a savage, cruel and brutal race. They erase any doubt about the existence of pure, unadulterated evil. The presence of a demonic figure in smoke billowing from the World Trade Center may or may not have been a literal demon, but it was certainly symbolic of the evil act just committed.

Why is man so evil? It isn’t because God willed it. It was never God’s intention for the world to be this way.

Man is evil because we choose to be that way. Paul wrote that the truth of God is plain to everyone and that truth is only suppressed by the

wickedness of our hearts (Romans 1:18-23). The fundamental truth that it is wrong to murder your fellow human beings was suppressed by bin Laden’s promises of paradise. While most of us don’t go out and murder thousands of people, we do suppress God’s fundamental moral truths in order to lie, cheat, and steal on a regular basis.

What hope do we have? Spiritually, our hope is in Christ, who died for us. Even though our sins seem to pale in comparison to those of bin Laden and the terrorists, we still fall short of the requirement (Romans 3:10, Romans 6:23). Our only hope for salvation and forgiveness is to accept Christ’s sacrifice (Romans 10:9-10). There is no need to wage a holy war.

Physically, our hope is that “we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). This doesn’t mean that only good things happen to believers. It does mean that God has the ability to turn evil into blessings. Notably, this hope is not given to those who do not love God. The cross-shaped debris found in the rubble of the World Trade Center is symbolic of God’s presence, even in the fiery hell of the collapsing towers.

What blessings have come from the 9/11 attacks? We may never know fully. We do know that the attacks resulted in the liberation of two countries. The uprisings of the Arab Spring that are toppling dictators across the Muslim world may be the result of events set in motion by the attacks. Thanks to increased American involvement in the Arab world, Muslims have gotten a glimpse of compassion and forgiveness as American military doctors save the lives of their former enemies, people who would happily torture them to death if the situation were reversed. Two of the most heartwarming stories of the war on terror are those of Hannan and Razia, girls from Iraq and Afghanistan who were horribly burned during combat. Americans cared for the girls and provided them with much more assistance than they would have gotten at home.

Less visible, but no less important are the spiritual results. We will never know how many hearts were opened to God by the events on 9/11. God’s comfort and strength were all that enabled the families of some survivors to go on. Perhaps some of the victims would tell us how God comforted them in their final moments as “I was there” suggests. God calls us all, as evidenced by the reports of supernatural dreams and visions directing thousands of Muslims to Christ.

The 9/11 attacks can be viewed as a warning. They remind us that nothing is assured. Our comfortable lives can be snuffed out at a moment’s notice, whether by a terrorist attack, a car accident, or some natural cause. We are reminded to pay attention to what is important, to serve God, to love our families, and to help others. We know what we’re supposed to do.

Let’s roll.

[Thanks to Debi Thornton for the inspiring for this article.]

 

Read the rest of this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/9-11-the-good-the-bad-and-the-evil

Ten years after 9/11, US is winning war on terror

Ten years after the September 11 attacks, the U.S. is winning the war on terror. In the fevered days after the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, most Americans were holding their breath, waiting for the next explosions. They never came.

It was not because al Qaeda did not try. Al Qaeda was successful in launching attacks in other countries. The 2002 bombing of a nightclub in Bali killed 180 people. In 2003, al Qaeda bombs killed 58 and wounded 750 in Istanbul. In 2004, a series of bombs on commuter trains in Madrid killed 190 and wounded 2,000. The 2005 attack on the London subway killed 56.

There have been numerous terror plots disrupted by U.S. and allied intelligence agencies. By one count, 39 al Qaeda plots have been foiled in the United States since September 11. Some of these plots were high profile such as the “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, in December 2001 or the “underwear bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in December 2009. Most frequent fliers will recall the liquid bomb plot against airliners from August 2006 since it marked the beginning of the ban on all but the smallest liquids for airline travelers.

Fewer will remember the cargo bomb plot disrupted less than a year ago in October 2010 in which terrorists tried to ship bomb-laden packages on cargo planes. There were also plots to attack soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J. in May 2007, to blow up fuel tanks at Kennedy airport in June 2007, and attempted car bombings in Times Square in May 2010 and at a Portland, Ore. Christmas tree lighting in November 2010. Miraculously all of these attempted terror attacks were thwarted.

The fact that the terrorists have not struck America again is largely due the valor and sacrifice of American and allied soldiers, sailors, airmen, and intelligence officers. In addition to freeing two countries, they have decimated al Qaeda’s leadership beginning with beginning with Mohammed Atef, an al Qaeda lieutenant killed in Afghanistan in November 2001. September 11 plotters Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were captured in Pakistan. Attacks on al Qaeda’s command and control culminated in the death of Osama bin Laden himself in Pakistan on May 1, 2011.

All of this was accomplished without the loss of civil liberties that many feared. The much maligned PATRIOT Act was reauthorized in 2005 and 2011 with bipartisan votes. The act was amended to assuage concerns about civil liberties. There have been no pogroms or harassment of American Muslims. The omnipresent and rabid criticism of President Bush is evidence that dissent was not crushed. Newspaper coverage of classified programs shows the lack of censorship. Unlike during the Civil War, habeas corpus was not suspended. With the exception of increased screenings at airports, there has been little change for most Americans. Even the soldiers armed with automatic weapons that were present at airports after the September 11 attacks are long gone.

President Bush deserves credit for bringing the nation together in the days after September 11. President Bush’s steadfastness in the darkest days of the war, when even members of his own party were calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, eventually led to the surge that pacified the country. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq removed Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer and sponsor of terrorism, and may have ultimately helped to fuel the Arab Spring uprisings.

President Obama also deserves credit for his part in the war on terror. Obama ordered the attack on Osama bin Laden and ordered his own surge in Afghanistan and stepped up drone attacks on fighters in Pakistan. Obama also deserves credit for reneging on his campaign promise for a precipitous pullout from Iraq.

The new face of terror is the homegrown terrorist. Several recent terror attacks have been carried out or attempted by local Muslims who became radicalized over the internet without planning or direction by al Qaeda leaders. Although several al Qaeda agents and cells had been discovered earlier, Abu Nidal Hasan’s Fort Hood rampage in November 2009 was the first high-profile terror attack by a homegrown radical. Earlier that year, members of a terror cell in North Carolina were accused of plotting attacks.

Georgia is not without radicals. In 2009, two Georgia Tech students, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee were convicted of making videos to scout locations for terror attacks. Sadequee had been previously arrested in Sarajevo in 2005 with plastic explosives and bomb making materials as part of “al Qaeda in Europe.” Earlier this year, a Marietta woman admitted mailing a bloody pig foot and anti-Semitic ramblings to New York congressman Peter King.

The Augusta Chronicle recently reported that in the ten years since September 11, $460 million has been spent protecting Georgia from terrorists. Half of this money has been spent in Atlanta where the state capitol and the international airport make inviting targets. This amount, spent over ten years, represents less than six percent of the amount that President Obama and the Democrats spent in one year on their stimulus bill. It was only 42 percent of Georgia’s $1.08 billion share of the stimulus money. The homeland security money was arguably a much better investment.

Although the war on terror will likely continue for the foreseeable future, it is evident that the United States is winning. In spite of numerous attempts, al Qaeda has not been able to attack America in ten years and most of al Qaeda’s senior leadership is either dead or imprisoned. American freedoms and civil liberties have been preserved.

The constantly changing face of terrorism means that there are constant new threats, from car bombs to sniper attacks to nuclear weapons. Threats come of lone wolves hiding in American society as well as state sponsored terror groups. Perhaps the biggest danger – and irony - is that the war on terror has been so successful that most Americans no longer feel threatened.

 

Read the rest of this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/ten-years-after-9-11-us-is-winning-war-on-terror

The truth about the September 11 attacks

As the U.S. approaches the tenth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, it is time to put to rest the myriad of conspiracy theories that have surrounded both the attacks and the U.S. response. Radicals from both the extreme right and left have sought to propagate these theories in order to further their own aims. Not coincidentally, many of these conpiricists have also made handsome profits from books and films that purport to dispel the lies about 9/11.

The attacks, which were the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, resulted in the deaths of 2,996 people. Several Georgians were also killed in the attacks. Maynard Spence of Douglasville, Harshad Thatte of Norcross, Adam White of Atlanta, and Claude Michael Gann of Roswell died in the World Trade Center. Leslie Whittington of Atlanta died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. U.S. Army Maj. Steve Long of Georgia died in the Pentagon.

Five years after the attacks, Popular Mechanics released a definitive analysis of many of the conspiracy claims. Much of the information in the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To Hard Facts” is now available for free online at PopularMechanics.com. The website 911myths.com also debunks many of the conspiracy theories around the attacks.

The Popular Mechanics report notes that only 14 American fighter planes were on alert in the 48 contiguous states on the morning of September 11. Further, intercepts of civilian aircraft were not common for air defense fighters. In the decade before the attacks, the one and only civilian aircraft intercepted by fighters in U.S. airspace was the Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart, which flew uncontrolled from Florida to South Dakota before crashing after the cabin depressurized. PM reports that it took an F-16 one hour and 22 minutes to make the intercept.

In answer to the skeptics’ claim that the damage to the World Trade Center buildings was too widespread to be caused by a single aircraft strike on each tower, PM responds that thousands of pounds of jet fuel atomized on impact and traveled throughout the buildings. The burning fuel spread flames through elevator and utility shafts. Flames reportedly exploded through the elevator doors in the lobby moments after impact. The 1500 degree flames from burning jet fuel was not strong enough melt steel, but it did reduce the steel frames of the towers to about ten percent of their normal strength.

PM notes that at least one conspiracy site cropped seismology charts to support the notion that controlled demolitions toppled the towers. The full charts clearly show the impacts of both aircraft followed by the collapse of the towers. Extensive damage to surrounding buildings also lends credence to the fact that the collapse of the towers was a chaotic, catastrophic event.

Conspiracy theorists have charged that the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than an airplane, citing the small size of the hole in the wall. PM points out that both wings of the aircraft were sheared off by the impact and that the 75 foot wide hole that is consistent with the size of the airliner’s fuselage. A separate 12 foot hole was likely made by the landing gear.

In contrast with conspiracy claims that no aircraft wreckage was recovered at the Pentagon, there are both photos and eyewitness accounts of

aircraft wreckage. Allyn Kilsheimer, a structural engineer and blast expert who arrived on scene shortly after the crash, is quoted in the PM article, “I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box. I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

In Pennsylvania, where United Flight 93 crashed, a white jet reported in the area is revealed to be a business jet that was descending into nearby Johnstown. Air traffic control asked the jet’s pilots to investigate Flight 93 and they subsequently orbited the crash site at 1500 feet.

PM reports that the debris pattern of the Flight 93 crash site is consistent with a surface impact given the flight path and wind direction at the time of the crash. Lighter debris was thrown up and carried downwind for several miles. Similarly, an engine was found 300 yards downrange. This is consistent with the mass and velocity of the engine at impact.

Reports on a conspiracy radio show that claimed an F-16 pilot shot the airliner down were revealed to be lies. Ed Jacoby, director of the New York State Emergency Management Office, was with the pilot reported to have fired the missiles at Flight 93. The F-16 and pilot were tasked to return Jacoby from a meeting in Montana to Albany, N.Y. where he could coordinate the emergency services response to the attacks. Jacoby categorically denies that the pilot, Lt. Col. Rick Gibney, shot down Flight 93.

An examination of the timing of the attacks backs up Jacoby’s story. The North Dakota Air National Guard operated F-16Bs. The straight-line distance between Bozeman, Mt. and Albany, N.Y. is 1,857 miles. Using the fighter’s top speed listed on the plane’s Air Force fact sheet, 1,345 mph, the trip would take less than an hour and a half, which would barely give Gibney time to get in position to shoot down Flight 93 at 10:03 a.m. if he took off from Bozeman immediately after American Flight 11 crashed into the WTC at 8:46 a.m. Eastern Time. But, according to the Air Force, the F-16B’s range is only 1,407 miles and that range could only be achieved by flying at slower speeds. It is likely that Gibney had to rendezvous with an aerial tanker, which would further slow down the flight to Albany. It is also highly unlikely that Gibney was ready to launch immediately after the first WTC attack. In fact, Gibney first had to fly from his base at Fargo, N.D. to Bozeman to pick up Jacoby. There is simply no way he could have been over Pennsylvania in time to shoot down Flight 93.

Logically, the conspiracy theories do not add up. An obvious reason is that the government and the military were clearly caught by surprise. According to the official timeline on National911Memorial.org, President Bush, who was visiting students at a Florida elementary school, was notified that a plane had crashed into the WTC at 8:50 a.m., four minutes after American Flight 11, the first hijacked airliner, had crashed. United Flight 175 crashed at 9:03 a.m. and the president was notified two minutes later.

The Secret Service did not evacuate Vice President Cheney from the White House to a secure bunker until 9:30, one minute before American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The nationwide ground stop for all flights was issued at 9:42 a.m. and the White House and Capitol were evacuated at 9:45, an hour after the attacks began. The last commercial flight in U.S. airspace did not land until 12:16 p.m.

In the years after the attacks, President Bush faced much criticism for his slow reaction to the attacks. If the U.S. government were complicit in the attacks, the reaction of all levels of government, including President Bush, would have been much more swift and certain. When the president left Florida aboard Air Force One, he was taken to Offutt AFB in Nebraska after a stop in Louisiana. The president’s location was kept secret for much of the day due to an anonymous phone call that was interpreted as a threat against Air Force One. President Bush did not make his memorable address to the nation until later that night.

Equally illogical is the culprit behind the 9/11 attacks. If, as some charge, the attacks were a smokescreen to justify an invasion of Iraq, then why implicate Osama bin Laden, a Saudi exile that few had ever heard of, and the Afghan Taliban? If Iraq were truly the target of the conspirators, it seems that the evidence would have pointed toward Saddam Hussein, a known supporter of terrorists. As it was, the invasion of Iraq did not take place until March 19, 2003, a year and a half after September 11.

Finally, 9/11 conspiracy theories can be compared to a real government conspiracy, Operation Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious was an operation carried out by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ostensibly to track the smuggling of weapons to Mexico. In reality, ATF allowed criminals to make “straw purchases” of thousands of weapons, which were then taken to Mexico where ATF lost the trail. Weapons from the program were used to murder a U.S. Border Patrol agent in December 2010.

In contrast with 9/11 conspiracies, there is ample evidence of the government’s culpability in Fast and Furious. Whistleblowers came forward almost immediately and a congressional investigation was begun. If government workers objected to the cover-up of one death in Fast and Furious enough to risk their jobs to bring out the truth, it is likely that a conspiracy large enough to cover-up the hijackings of four airliners and that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians would also generate a large number of whistleblowers seeking justice. No whistleblowers have come forward and investigations are limited to members of the political fringe such as professional conspiracy monger Alex Jones and Cynthia McKinney, a former Georgia congresswoman turned Green Party presidential candidate who is perhaps best remembered for striking a U.S. Capitol police officer.

In truth, there was a conspiracy around the September 11 attacks. It was conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorists. The

very date of the attacks, September 11, is prominent in Muslim history as the anniversary of a catastrophic defeat of the Turks outside the gates of Vienna, Austria in 1683. The defeat ended Turkish dreams of controlling Europe and marked the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Bin Laden and his zealots hoped that September 11, 2001 would be the beginning of an Islamic jihad to throw Americans and other westerners out of Muslim lands as a first step in establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

 

Note:  With the exception of the 9/11 memorial engraving, the photos are from the September 11, 2001 Attacks collection on Wikimedia.org.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-truth-about-the-september-11-attacks

 

 

Tea Party terror

Last week, in the aftermath of the debt limit compromise, it became fashionable in liberal circles to label conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Party members as terrorists. A common theme among progressives refers to conservatives who are holding the country hostage in order to prevent Democrats from spending their way to an economic recovery.

Representative of many of the progressive musings was a blog on RealClearPolitics.com by Froma Harop. Harop wrote:

“Make no mistake: The tea party Republicans have engaged in economic terrorism against the United States -- threatening to blow up the economy if they don't get what they want. And like the al-Qaida bombers, what they want is delusional: the dream of restoring some fantasy caliphate in which no one pays taxes, while the country is magically protected from foreign attack and the elderly get government-paid hip replacements. Americans are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but that's what Obama has been doing.”

Even USA Today, a mainstream newspaper, ran an editorial cartoon in its Friday, August 5 edition which portrays the Tea Party as a Mad Hatter holding President Obama hostage. In the cartoon, President Obama laments that “We now negotiate with terrorists.” The cartoon, which first ran in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, can be viewed here.

The terrorist analogies were not limited to columnists and newspaper editorials. According to Politico.com, Vice President Joe Biden allegedly agreed with Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) when Doyle said in a closed door meeting “this small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” According to the report, Biden responded, “They have acted like terrorists.”

Even President Obama, in his Twitter town hall on July 6, referred to the Republican tactic of linking spending cuts to an increase in the debt limit as “a gun against the heads of the American people.” A video of Obama’s comment is available on Youtube.

The violent imagery, condemned by many of these same progressives as little as six months ago, belies the frustrations of the left in the wake of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010 and nearly three years of failed Democratic economic policies. Not only has President Obama and his economic team failed to lead the nation to an economic recovery, they have done so at the cost of increasing the national debt by a third in less than three years. Their failure is capped off by the recent downgrade of U.S. treasury bonds by Standard and Poors.

The terror comparisons also reveal that many progressives do not accept the fact that there are alternate viewpoints that can be held in good faith. In their world, an attempt to cut spending isn’t about reducing the deficit for the good of the country; it is an attempt to “blow up the economy.” On economic issues, much like climate change, once the consensus of liberal elites is reached, any departure from the progressive orthodoxy is to be scorned, ridiculed, and otherwise not taken seriously.

A recent Atlanta Conservative Examiner column that solicited answers from Democrats to a series of questions about Obama Administration policies did not receive a single serious response. Democratic policies are not working. The Democrats realize that they are not working, but they have no other ideas. This makes them angry and causes them to lash out.

In reality, of course, the Tea Party is not a group of terrorists. The Tea Party is made up of average Americans, like the thousands who gathered at the Georgia state capitol in Atlanta on April 15, 2009 to protest the $800 billion stimulus package and corporate bailouts (see a slideshow of this Tea Party here). Various attempts to paint the Tea Party as violent and racist in the past have failed for lack of evidence while tolerant progressives referred to the group’s members by a sexual slur.

The Tea Party is similar to a number of progressive activist groups, except that it is a true grass roots movement of real people who are concerned about the direction of the United States. It spontaneously arose to protest the bipartisan bailouts and out-of-control federal spending. The Republican Party listened to the people. The Democrats did not and they paid the price in the 2010 elections.

True terrorists, whom the progressives seem somewhat less concerned about than the Tea Party, don’t use filibusters and congressional votes to get their way. Their weapons of choice are IEDs, suicide vests, and hijacked airliners. A loss to the terrorists wouldn’t mean a budget compromise; it would mean thousands of dead and maimed victims. The Tea Party is a totally open and decentralized network of groups that even has multiple pages, like this one for the Atlanta Tea Party Patriots, on social networking sites like Facebook. Needless to say, there are no Facebook pages for the Taliban or al Qaeda.

To attempt to label the Tea Party as terrorists demeans the progressives who make the charge, much the same way as it demeans conservatives to call President Obama a socialist. It also detracts from the seriousness of the threat of the actual terrorists, people whose goal is to kill as many Americans as possible and to bring our country to its knees. True terrorism is a life and death matter, not a tempest in a tea pot.

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/tea-party-terror

<a href=" http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/tea-party-terror"><img src="http://www.examiner.com/assets/images/Examiner-Badge.jpg" border="none"></a>

 

Photo credits:  David W. Thornton, All rights reserved