A tale of two Texas politicos with ties to 9/11

"A man’s pride will bring him low,
But the humble in spirit will retain honor."
Proverbs 29:23

Obviously, the anniversary of 9/11 was last week.  On this year's anniversary we realized something we've been meaning to discuss.  We want to commit this to writing before more time passes.

Senator Brian Birdwell and Chancellor Bill McRaven are both veterans.  During their military service, both were involved in incidents with direct ties to the 9/11 attacks.  But the contrast between how each discusses those experiences is striking.

On September 11, 2001, Brian Birdwell was stationed at the Pentagon.  Not only was he stationed at the Pentagon, but he was stationed in the section of the Pentagon where the plane struck.  The only reason he survived was because he had left his office to go to the bathroom.



Birdwell was burned on over 60% of his body and a plurality of those burns were third degree.  His full recovery took several years.  Nevertheless, he persisted to a full recovery before retiring from the military.

In 2010, Birdwell won a special election to the Texas Senate.  Since then, he's served as a faithful conservative in that body.  During that time, he's focused on the issues in front of him rather than looking backwards.

While Birdwell doesn't hide from his 9/11 experience, he rarely discusses it unless he's asked.  We've never heard him discuss it in a political context except when it's directly relevant to the issue at hand.  Indeed, this author didn't realize the Brian Birdwell from 9/11 and the Brian Birdwell in the Texas Senate were the same person until a couple years ago.

Bill McRaven, by contrast, was appointed by Obama to head special forces.  As such, he was involved with the raid that killed Usama bin Laden.  While McRaven likes to present himself as a crucial participant in that mission, numerous special forces sources (at least five) have told this author that McRaven was a bit player who has embellished his role to advance his career.

[Note: Direct quote from a Navy SEAL with whom we spoke approximately two years ago, "McRaven's story of his role in the bin Laden raid is the biggest horse shit political fairy tale I've ever heard in my life."]

Three months after the bin Laden raid, SEAL Team 6 was shot down while performing a mission in Afghanistan.  This tragedy highlighted many shortcomings of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and was thus politically embarrassing to the Obama administration.  To avoid said political embarrassment, Bill McRaven ran point on the Obama administration's cover-up.

Furthermore, Birdwell only brings up his 9/11 experience when he's asked or it's directly relevant to the situation.  McRaven, on the other hand, never shuts up about having once been in the military.  It's become a running joke at the Capitol and among UT Board watchers that you could turn McRaven's incessant references to his former military employment into a drinking game.

Bottom Line: It's a very revealing contrast.

U.T. Politburo continues BLOWING SMOKE in Wallace Hall's LAWSUIT Hearing

Regent Wallace Hall testifies this afternoon

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart."
Galatians 6:9

Travis County Courthouse -- It takes a special combination of arrogance, incompetence, and mendacity for an organization to a defendant in two MAJOR court cases in one day separated by 1500 miles.  Today, the University of Texas earned that dubious distinction.  We will leave it to others to comment on Fischer v. University of Texas in Washington D.C.; we were in Austin for the district court hearing in Hall v. McRaven.

Today's lawsuit springs out of the University's refusal to grant Regent Wallace Hall access to records from an external investigation into corruption in the admissions process.  Last February, the University received a report compiled by Kroll Associates ('The Kroll Report') that documented political favoritism via the office of disgraced former UT-Austin President Bill Powers in the admissions process.  Subsequent press reports have detailed political favoritism far beyond anything reported by Kroll.

Today's hearing revolved around which records Regent Hall is allowed to review as part of his fiduciary responsibility to the University.  Regent Hall's legal team argued that for him to be able to root out improper influence from legislators and other Regents, he needed to be able to review SAT scores and GPA for the relevant candidates.  The University countered that student specific data was prohibited from disclosure under the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).

University General Council Dan Sharphorn was the University's 'star' witness.  For two hours, he filibustered using circular reasoning and non-sequiters on the relationship between FERPA and the fiduciary duty of a University Regent.  Sharphorn routinely "did not know," "could not recall," and "was not positive" under questioning from Hall's attorneys.  Sharphorn refused to give a straight answer as to how he would define a "legitimate educational interest" as it pertains to the Kroll report.  Hall's lawyers got Sharphorn to admit his office missed the extent of political favoritism in the admissions process in it's own investigation until a whistle-blower came forward.  By the end of Sharphorn's testimony, it was clear that "student privacy" was a euphemism for 'cover-up,' and "I do not recall" was a euphemism for "F[REDACTED]K YOU."

University of Texas Chancellor Bill McRaven, the defendant in the case, testified next.  McRaven referred to his previous military career seven times, including three mentions of his role in the bin Laden raid, yet he never mentioned his role covering up the deaths of SEAL Team 6.  McRaven spent considerable time discussing the allegedly new admissions policy he shepherded through the Board of Regents following the Kroll Report.  McRaven notably failed to define the phrase "very rare" as it pertains to the allegedly new policy he was promoting so vociferously.  McRaven, who assumed his current position in January, was unfamiliar with the sequencing of events prior to his tenure.  McRaven didn't have a good answer to questions from Hall's attorney about Powers' insistence upon destroying the paper trail following admissions discussions.  All of McRaven's answers were variations upon the theme that the University was willing to provide Regent Hall with anything he requested so long as it could not confirm the accuracy and completeness of the Kroll report.

Hall faced questioning from his attorney at the end of the day.  He explained how, when he joined the Board in 2011, he vowed "not to be a rubber stamp."  He told how he first learned about the corrupt admissions process (and a separate 'forgivable loan' program) as part of an effort he lead to put University records online.  Regarding the Kroll Report specifically, Hall said his suspicions were aroused after former President Powers failed to identify certain "pressures" he claimed were placed upon his office.  In addition, that the Kroll Report exceeded the mandate it had been given by the University stimulated Hall's curiosity.  Unfortunately, the University's refusal to turn the relevant documents over to Hall makes him unable to verify the Kroll Report.  Time ran out on today's hearing before the University's lawyers could cross-examine Hall, but they will do so when the hearing resumes tomorrow.

Bottom Line: Today's hearing was more of the same BS we've come to expect from U.T. the past three years.  The hearing will resume tomorrow morning at 10 am.  Due to a prior commitment, we will not attend.

Book Review: Betrayed, by Billy Vaughn

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."
Ephesians 5:11

To understand University of Texas Chancellor Bill McRaven, you have to examine his performance in his last job as the head of U.S. Special Forces.  Cahnman's Musings has previously examined his role in destroying the bin Laden death photos.  We've also looked into his failure to comply with Federal open records laws.

Betrayed: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL's Father, by Billy Vaughn, details the actions of the government following the Extortion 17 fiasco in Afghanistan in August 2011.  It was Navy Seal history's deadliest day.  Billy Vaughn's son, Aaron, was on-board.

In May 2011, Seal Team 6 conducted the raid that killed Usama bin Laden.  They died less than four months later.  Almost immediately, the government's story began unraveling.

Three day's after President Obama's announcement of bin Laden's death, Aaron Vaughn called his family in a panic (44).  They needed to instantly close their social media accounts and scrub their presence from the internet.  In an astonishing breach of protocol, senior government officials had already blabbed about Seal Team 6's role in the raid (52-3).  Because of that, the military was concerned about retaliaton against their family members.  This was the beginning of the journey.

Following Aaron's tragic death that August, the government's story became increasingly suspect.  They lied to the families about the media presence when the coffins returned stateside (67).  Almost immediately, questions arose about both the competence and loyalty of their Afghan counterparts (75).  The team was transported into a combat zone "in these slow, outdated troop transport carriers, rather than the usual MH-47 Chinooks that are designed to get in and out of of hotspots quickly" (101).  Their number of missions had grown unsustainable (102).  Worst of all, the rules of engagement prevented the SEALs from properly engaging the enemy (103).  As Billy Vaughn explains, "something was starting to become very clear: weak-willed 'winnning hearts and minds' ideology had taken priority over keeping my son, the men on that chopper, our miliatry, and even our nation, secure" (105).

As the Vaughn family's questions mounted, so did their inquiries in official Washington.  They were ignored by John Boehner and Harry Reid (106).  A staffer for their own U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio, rudely blew them off (107).  Further investigation led "to the appalling realization that the mightiest military in the world is being ripped asunder by a regime in Washington, D.C., putrefied with political correctness, moral depravity, and utter corruption" (114).  And that was before they learned that the landing zone hadn't been properly secured (131).  It's here where Mr. McRaven enters the picture.

In November 2012, the Vaughns attended a Naval function in Florida where Mr. McRaven was the guest of honor.  Billy Vaughn wanted to share some of the things he'd learned to prevent future tragedies.  Their conversation speaks for itself:

When the admiral finished speaking, I approached him, took off my sunglasses, shook his hand, and said, "My name is Billy Vaughn, you probably don't remember me..."

Admiral [sic] McRaven responded cheerfully, "Well, of course, I remember you."

I asked if I could speak with him privately. Hesitant, he paused, and then agreed to meet me behind the bleachers after he finished shaking hands and taking pictures with people in the audience.

....

As the admiral approached, I spoke quickly, not wanting to was any time with pleasantries. "Sir, I just wanted to know if anything is being done differently to protect the lives of our men in battle."

Since Admiral McRaven told me he knew who I was, I thought I didn't have to explain my connection to the Extortion 17 shoot-down. He had replaced Admiral Olson, as US Special Operations Commander, just a few days after Aaron died, and I wanted to know if the military strategy had changed.

I meant this in the most respectful way, but for some reason he became irritated when he spoke with me, "What's the matter with you? Don't you think I care about every guy we lose?"

I responded respectfully, "Well, Sir, I'm hoping you can share some things that will convince me that you do."

I genuinely hoped that a man in his position would know if anything had changed since Extortion 17 went down. I felt the burden as a parent to make sure that nothing like this ever happened again to our military. Admiral McRaven got defensive, put his hand on my shoulder and drew me closer to him with a smirk on his face, which was quickly becoming a brighter shade of red, and said, "Let me give you a few facts, IF your son did die...."

In lightning speed I raised my tone higher than his and said, "What do you mean IF my son was killed? You said you recognized me, and you knew who I was. I'm the father of Aaron Vaughn and he was killed."

This was not going well. There had not been a single military officer who had shown any notion of disrespect toward me since Aaron had died. He flashed a deer in the headlights look, and then immediately apologized. "I'm sorry, I didn't recognize you."

I can't remember what he said next, but he gave me the impression that he thought my son was connected to Benghazi. "I'm not talking about Benghazi. My son was killed on August 6, 2011." At this point, I was thinking, "he's just another politician. He pretended to know who I was, and now he's pretending to know something aboput me that he really didn't remember."

I went on, "You can smile and smirk if you want to, Sir, but let me give you three facts..."

Interrupting me nearly mid-sentence, he raised his voice and said, "Okay, I know who you are!"

Ignoring the interruption and it's content, I continued quickly, "Sir, whey was there no pre-assault fire that night?"

He snapped back, "They can get pre-assault fire any time they want it!"

I responded, "Well, Sir, according to the sworn testimony, they can almost never get pre-assault fire."

His next words only fueled the fire. "Well, what do you want to do, shoot up an entire village?"

"No Sir, but according to the sworn testimony, the village was on the ridges of the valley. There had already been a three-and-a-half hour operation underway and the chopper was shot down in the valley. Also, after the chopper was shot down, the Air Weapons Team did not take out the men who shot the RPG because there might have been friendlies in the building below the tower."

In a calmer tone he said, "There were a lot of mistakes made that night. This war is complicated."

The last comment -- sort of a confession -- struck me. There are mistakes made in every operation; I'm willing to admit that. But I was primarily concerned about the ideology causing our men to die needlessly. It was also the timing of the way Admiral McRaven said, "This war is complicated," because I was just previously forewarned by someone in Washington, D.C. that the flag officers, like Admiral McRaven, are known to say these very words when they want to avoid questioning. It seemed to imply that I could not possibly understand if he were to to go into greater detail.

I was now experiencing this warning firsthand.

Unfortunately, I didn't have the chance to tell him the third fact, and he still never answered my concern on whether he was doing something differently to protect our men in the battlefield. So all I could say was, "Sir, a man in your position, if he had the nuts and the guts, could speak up and change the way we conduct this war, and save our warriors."

Admiral McRaven, who is quite a bit taller than me, then jabbed his finger in my face.

I pointed my finger back at his chest, saying, "Let me tell you something, Sir. You can make a scene if you want, but there are people watching us right now, and I don't think either one of us want that.

He agreed and backed off.

I then calmly said, "What we need to do is get together and have a cup of coffee sometime." In agreement, we shook hands, and he told me to contact his office when I had an opportunity to stop by.

(145-9)

As the Vaughn's dug deeper, they were continually approached by military members  who new first hand how the U.S. government's senior leadership was weakening the military; this set the stage for their follow-up visit with Mr. McRaven:

On January 4, 2013, Admiral McRaven arrived in a black SUV with tinted windows. The SUV pulled into my driveway, all the way up to the garage, and Admiral McRaven and a staff member got out. The driver then backed into the street and reversed into my driveway to park. I chuckled because it appeared as though they had intended to make a speedy getaway when our visit was over.

Karen and I welcomed Admiral McRaven and his subordinate into our home. We greeted each other and met his advisor, who was exceedingly polite and gracious. Admiral McRaven was a complete gentleman this time, leading me to believe it would be a positive encounter as I had hoped. He apologized for not knowing who I was. I accepted his apology and appreciated his concern. The four of us then sat at our dining room table.

Admiral McRaven started out by kindly giving us his condolences and expressed that he wanted to answer any questions we had. He told us he wanted to help us with our 'grieving.'

The 'grieving' angle must be a talking point all officers are keyed in on, since we've heard it time and time again. It's dismissive and insulting. It's as though any question or concern you have is only due to your "grief," not the very real possibility your question is valid.

The admiral wanted to emphasize that nothing about the meeting would be political. Karen and I were primarily concerned about our men and women in the military and the questions surrounding Extortion 17, so naturally we agreed the meeting was not about politics.

We started with small talk and about a half hour into the conversation, Admiral McRaven assured us, "I just want you to know that the military would never hold anything back from the parents."

To which Karen very respectfully responded, "What about Pat Tillman?"

Admiral McRaven lunged forward in his chair, his face instantly reddened, his voice churlish -- as though Karen had no right to say such a thing -- he nearly shouted, "What about Pat Tillman? It was just a simple case of friendly fire!"

The room fell silent, stunned.

Of course, it was just a 'simple case of friendly fire.' The problem was that it took the Tillman family three years to get the truth about the events surrounding Pat's death. Three years of being blatantly lied to by the United States military.

It hadn't been Karen's intention, but clearly she struck a nerve. Much earlier in our search for truth, we had spoken with a man who serves on Admiral McRaven's staff. In that conversation...he finally said, "Billy, the damn Army will lie." Then shortly thereafter, he made a statement, which bluntly ended that portion of the conversation, "Remember Pat Tillman."

We didn't know what to say next. The admiral did not realize the full impact of the revealing statement he'd just made. I finally spoke softly, "The military is holding something back from the parents right now."

....

Further into our conversation, the admiral unexpectedly and with no apparent reason began touting the virtues of our current president. After a comment or two, I said, "Well, look, Sir, you are not going to get me to agree with you about President Obama.

Admiral McRaven laughed and said, "Okay, I know."

A short time later, he became more emboldened. "I know President Obama and I see him often. I don't just know him as a president, I know him as a man." He pounded his fist on our table. "And he's a good man."

Politely, I touched his arm, "Sir, I'm going to have to ask you not to mention that man's name in my house."

He said, "Okay." Then the admiral -- who said none of our discussion should be political -- continued weaving the praises of President Obama into our conversation any time he saw an opening.

By the time of this meeting, I had been personally reviewing the redacted files we received at Virginia Beach for almost a year. I was very well up-to-date with the material, but felt I'd receive a fuller picture of the shoot-down through Admiral McRaven's eyes. Would they have the answers to my questions? I didn't know -- but I had been hopeful.

That didn't last long.

....

After a few seconds, I asked, "Why was there no pre-assault fire before Extortion 17 went in, you know, just to soften then landing zone?"

With absolutely no hesitation, the admiral replied, "The Operation was already over. By that time, the Rangers were already in the questioning phase of those they'd detained in the earlier raid and nothing else was going on."

Was this all Admiral McRaven had for his defense? If Operation Lefty Grove was "already over" then why was Extortion 17 sent in at all? Why was the IRF (Immediate Reaction Force) spun up with such hastiness that routes and landing zones were being determined after the chopper was already in the air? And why was the landing zone considered hot?

....

The misinformation continued and suspicions rose.

Around this point came yet another interjection about President Obama's qualifications and great, fearless leadership; this time it was in reference to Operation Neptune Spear.

The admiral explained to us that the president had nothing to gain from taking out Bin Laden. He then elaborated on the fear factor behind the president's brave decision to do so, telling us "There was only a forty percent chance that Osama was going to be at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan."

I told Admiral McRaven, "I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think the president had any choice but to go after Osama [sic] bin Laden."

He quickly replied, "How so?"

"Because the CIA had located him, and if people learned that Osama bin Laden was there, and it leaked that Barack Obama still refused to take him out, it would have devastated him politically."

At some point, the conversation shifted back to the matter at hand. I asked, "Why were our men on the wrong chopper?"

His countenance became a bit haughty and even defiant towards me.

....

And then came another round of praise for President Obama when I expressed a very painful concern, "It's hard for me to admit this, but I'm afraid my son's death is going to be in vain because the president has decided we're going to lose the war in Afghanistan."

His response caught me off guard, "Well I can't guarantee how Afghanistan is going to turn out, but I can tell you that President Obama is getting us out of Afghanistan."

Only two months earlier in our discussion at the Navy SEAL Mueseum, he'd snapped at me when I'd said the same thing. His response then: "We're winning the war in Afghanistan."

Had something changed in the previous two months or had he only been honest in one of our two conversations? I came back at him with a little frustration, "Yeah, but at what cost?"

His answer blew my mind: "President Obama got us out of Iraq!"

Unable to contain myself I blurted out, "And look how well that turned out. Now Iran is transporting weapons through Iraq to Syria and threatening Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East."

Still to this dat, I cannot believe what he said next, "Well, you know George Bush got us into the war in Iraq!"

This statement literally shook me. It was a childish argument and very unbecoming of a man of such high stature.

....

We were now faced with the heavy realization that one of the most powerful men in the special forces world had no intention of changing a single method of operation. [Author's Note: Which is EXACTLY what he did with Bill Powers.]

(154-67)

All this from the man openly rumored to be on Hillary Clinton veep short list:



Bottom Line: Before he carried water for Bill Powers and Joe Straus, Bill McRaven carried water for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The Extortion 17 fiasco was well known by the time the U.T. system brought Mr. McRaven in as Chancellor.  For the scandal-plagued U.T. politburo to hire someone with Bill McRaven's record at this moment in it's history tells you everything you need to know about the U.T. politburo.

History Lesson: Transparency in Mr. McRaven's world

"Can anyone hide himself in secret places,
So I shall not see him?” says the Lord;
“Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord."
Jeremiah 23:24

With open records back in the news at U.T., it's worth remembering how Mr. McRaven handled public inquiries in his last job:

2 11 14 JW v DoD McRaven Email 2

History Lesson: When Mr. McRaven destroyed the bin Laden photos

"Can anyone hide himself in secret places,
So I shall not see him?” says the Lord;
“Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord."
Jeremiah 23:24

Pop quiz: Remember the 2011 controversy, shortly after the bin Laden raid, when President Obama refused to release the photos from UBL's death?!?  Guess which currently serving University of Texas Chancellor ordered the destruction of those photos....

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on January 31, 2014, it received documents from the Department of Defense (Pentagon) revealing that within hours of its filing a May 13, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking photos of the deceased Osama bin Laden, U.S. Special Operations Commander, Admiral William McRaven ordered his subordinates to “destroy” any photos they may have had “immediately.” Judicial Watch had filed a FOIA request for the photos 11 days earlier. 

The McRaven email, addressed to “Gentlemen,” instructs: 

One particular item that I want to emphasize is photos; particularly UBLs remains. At this point – all photos should have been turned over to the CIA; if you still have them destroy them immediately or get them to the [redacted].  

According to the Pentagon documents, McRaven sent his email on “Friday, May 13, 2011 5:09 PM.”  The documents do not detail what documents, if any, were destroyed in response to the McRaven directive. The Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit seeking the documents was filed in the United States Court for the District of Columbia only hours earlier. Judicial Watch also announced the filing at a morning press conference. 

On May 2, Judicial Watch had filed a FOIA request with the Defense Department seeking “all photographs and/or video recordings of Usama (Osama) Bin Laden taken during and/or after the U.S. military operation in Pakistan on or about May 1, 2011.”  Federal law contains broad prohibitions against the “concealment, removal, or mutilation generally” of government records. 

The records containing the McRaven “destroy them immediately” email were produced as a result of a June 7, 2013, FOIA request and a subsequent lawsuitagainst the Defense Department for records relating to reports of the 2011 McRaven purge directive. McRaven’s order was first mentioned at the end of a 2011 draft reportby the Pentagon’s inspector general (IG) examining whether the Obama administration gave special access to Hollywood executives planning the film “Zero Dark Thirty.”  According the draft report, “ADM McRaven also directed that the names and photographs associated with the raid not be released. This effort included purging the combatant command’s system of all records related to the operation and providing these records to another Government Agency.”  The reference to the document purge did not appear in the final IG report.

 More from Marine Corps Times:

WASHINGTON — A newly-released email shows that 11 days after the killing of terror leader Osama bin Laden in 2011, the U.S. military’s top special operations officer ordered subordinates to destroy any photographs of the al-Qaida founder’s corpse or turn them over to the CIA.

The email was obtained under a freedom of information request by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch. The document, released Monday by the group, shows that Adm. William McRaven, who heads the U.S. Special Operations Command, told military officers on May 13, 2011, that photos of bin Laden’s remains should have been sent to the CIA or already destroyed. Bin Laden was killed by a special operations team in Pakistan on May 2, 2011.

McRaven’s order to purge the bin Laden material came 10 days after The Associated Press asked for the photos and other documents under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Typically, when a freedom of information request is filed to a government agency under the Federal Records Act, the agency is obliged to preserve the material sought — even if the agency later denies the request.

Read the original e-mail chain here.

U.T. had to have known about this before they offered him the job.

Obama's Record on Radical Islam

Today is the anniversary of the Ft. Hood jihadist attack workplace violence.  Obviously, tomorrow is election day.  Given this juxtaposition, now is an appropriate time to review his record.

One Note: Whoever wins tomorrow, we need to reconfigure our strategy in this conflict.  Obviously, Obama's approach has been a treasonous disaster, but the alternatives advanced by George W. Bush and Ron Paul aren't satisfactory either.  I've outlined broad principles here.

Barack Obama has:

• Appointed Muslim Brotherhood linked operatives to numerous National Security positions and generally abetted Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

• Attempted to give Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, the architect of (the first) 9/11, a civilian trial in New York City.

• Failed to support the Green Revolution in Iran.

• Failed to stop the Ft. Hood shooter or properly define him; refuses to declassify the military after-action report.

• Failed to stop the Christmas Day 2009 pantybomber despite having been warned by the guy's father six weeks before the attempted attack; despite this, Janet Napoletano said 'the system worked.'

• Dithered in Afghanistan for a year then failed to give the military what they'd asked for.

• Condemned Israel's Gaza flotilla raid.

• Supported the Terrorist Victory Monument Islamic Cultural Center at Ground Zero.

• Had multiple members of his administration attempt to silence the counter-Islamic speech of a Pastor in Florida.

• Supported the Muslim Brotherhood over a longstanding American ally in Egypt.

• Launched an illegal war against a quasi-American ally in Libya without Congressional authorization, and that's just what he did in 2011.

• Dragged his feet on the bin Laden mission for a year, then revealed sources and methods to the enemy.

• Joined with the Organization of Islamic Conference to promote criminalizing counter-Islamic speech.

• Lectured Israel to return to the Auschwitz lines.

• Failed to renegotiate our Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government, squandering America's hard fought victory in Iraq.

• Shown no willingness to do anything difficult to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuke; blabs incessantly about the few steps he has taken.

• Signed a law allowing him to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens that we don't need to fight terrorism.

• Speaking of which, don't get me started on how much worse the TSA has gotten under Obama; the silver lining is that, in Barack Obama's economy, people can't afford to fly anywhere in the first place.

• Failed to secure a border where Islamic terrorists are working with Drug Cartels.

• Blamed a YouTube video for a series of coordinated attacks against U.S. embassies.

• Benghazi-gate continues getting worse.

• Stonewalled Congress regarding 80 boxes of discovery material provided to the defense in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

I did this list off the top of my head, so I've probably missed some stuff; feel free to add your 'favorites' in the comments.

Obama Administration Continues to Leak Sensitive Information to the New York Times

Today, I was on the bus home from work when I saw a paper copy of today's New York Times; the following headline was blared across the front page:

U.S IS TRACKING KILLERS IN ATTACK ON LIBYA MISSION...PREPARING RETALIATION...Secret Teams Focusing on Militant Group, Officials Say

The article, which details the planned retaliation against Libyan targets, reveals a stunning amount of detailed information to the enemy about U.S. sources and methods.

First Paragraph:

The United States is laying the groundwork for operations to kill or capture militants implicated in the deadly attack on a diplomatic mission in Libya, senior military and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

 Second Paragraph:

The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects, officials said....[T]he command is preparing the dossiers as the first step in anticipation of possible orders from President Obama...

 Third Paragraph:

Potential military options could include drone strikes, Special Operations raids like the one that killed Osama [sic] bin Laden, and joint missions with Libyan authorities.

 Eleventh Paragraph:

Both American counterterrorism officials and Benghazi residents are increasingly  focused on the local militant group Ansar al Shariah [sic] as the main force behind the attack.

Twelfth Paragraph:

In the hours after the Benghazi attack, the American official said, spy agencies intercepted electronic communications from Ansar al Shariah fighters....Another intercept captured cellphone conversations by militants on the grounds of the smoldering American Mission in Benghazi...

Twenty-First Paragraph:

Moving ahead with a roster of potential targets, the military planners in Washington started by culling pre-existing lists of suspects that are continuously updated by the Joint Special Operations Command and the C.I.A.

 Twenty-Second Paragraph:

American officials say that since the Benghazi attack, Special Operations planners have sharply increased their efforts to track the location and gather information on several members of Ansar al Shariah as well as other militants with ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Twenty-Third Paragraph:

But military and counterterrorism officials said that Libyan authorities has helped by at least identifying suspected assailants based on witness accounts, video and other paragraphs from the scene.

Twenty-Fourth Paragraph:

"They are putting together information on where these individuals live, who their family members and their associates are, and their entire pattern of life," said one American official briefed on the planning.

 Twenty-Fifth Paragraph:

And to help prioritize which militants to watch, the Pentagon has stepped up its use of surveillance drones flying over eastern Libya, collecting electronic intercepts, imagery and other information that could help planners compile their target lists.

This is outrageous.  The Obama national security team  continues to leak detailed information about sources and methods that any terrorist with a 56k modem can read.  Bob Gates said it best.

MOVIE REVIEW: "The Project" on TheBlazeTV

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32

Since the 2010 controversy over the Terrorist Victory Monument Ground Zero Mosque, Islamic cultural subversion in the United States has come under scrutiny.  "The Project" on theBlazeTV examines the state of play surrounding Islamic cultural subversion and is required viewing for anyone who wants to understand current controversies.  "The Project" should also be viewed by anyone who believes Islamic cultural subversion is not a big deal.

Contemporary Islamic cultural subversion is very similar its Communist equivalent from the 1930's to the 1950's.  The project, written in 1982, is a document discovered by Swiss Law enforcement two months after 9/11.  Similar to the 1963 goals of the Communist Party USA, the project outlines the Muslim Brotherhood's "Grand Jihad" to "eliminate and destroy Western Civilization from within."  The project advocates taking over Western Civilization by deception and evolutionary sabotage, rather than revolution.  The endgame, however, is exactly the same as Usama bin Laden's

Islamic 'scripture' commands all Muslims to conquer the Globe in the name of Allah.  While they agree on the goal, Muslims disagree on timing and tactics.  Moderate Muslims believe the time of Global Dominance is so far in the future that they have no special obligation to bring it about.  Radical Jihadists, however, believe they are obligated to bring Islamic dominance into being.  There are two types of radical Jihadists: violent and stealth.  Violent Jihadists, like Usama bin Laden, believe in direct confrontation.  Stealth Jihadists, by contrast, seek to weaken us from within first and kill us later; the Project details the plan for stealth cultural subversion.

"The project" chronicles Islamic cultural subversion in the United States over the past decade.  Just like the minions of Saul Alinsky, the primary strategy of civilizational Jihadists is to entrench themselves and corrupt influential institutions from within.  That starts with culture, education, and media then moves quickly to finance and government.  For Islamic cultural subversives, the current operational objective is to silence honest discussion of Islamic 'scripture;' their primary tactic is political correctness and the word 'Islamophobia.'  Islamophobia, a term deliberately modeled after similar homosexual efforts, is designed to slander anyone who honestly discusses Islamic 'scripture' as a bigot.  Of the many examples cataloged, I find the purge of FBI training materials most disturbing.

This is not a Democrat/Republican issue.  Both parties are guilty.  Infiltration by Islamic cultural subversives began under George W. Bush, it's gotten infinitely worse under Barack Obama.  This past summer, when five members of Congress sent letters requesting more information to the Inspectors General of five federal departments, they were first attacked by Republicans.  The only difference is that where establishment Republicans are either willfully blind or ignorantly profiteering, the Barack Obama Democrats are deliberately treasonous.

Moving forward, making public the documents already possessed by the executive branch is the top priority.  In the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, the Bush Justice Department provided 80 boxes of discovery material to the defense.  After the Obama administration came into office, those boxes were sealed away in a federal warehouse.  While the public cannot access those documents, an even bigger outrage is that Congressional Intelligence Committees cannot access them either.  The United States cannot solve this problem until the public (or at least Congress) grasps its magnitude.

For those of us who believe in the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization, a dirty little secret exists.  The struggle against Islamic cultural subversion is almost identical to the struggle against Communist cultural subversion.  With courage and truth, we can defeat both; hopefully without firing a shot.  Andrew Breitbart famously observed that culture, education, and media lie upstream of policy; that's just as true for cultural Jihad as cultural Marxism.  Step 1 is to honestly, if belatedly, define our enemy and their objective.  "The project" on theBlazeTV does exactly that, using that enemy's own words.  Do you want to face the ugly truth, or are you afraid?!?

Read the 1982 document here.

Read the 1991 follow-up document here.

Subscribe to theBlazeTV here.

MOVIE REVIEW: "The Hope and the Change" by Citizen United Productions

This review is proof of God's all powerful sense of humor.  I've been in touch with the P.R. department at Citizens United for the past week to get my copy of "Occupy Unmasked."  For all that effort, last night I saw Citizens United's other new release, "the Hope and the Change."

This documentary is devastating to Barack Obama.  It chronicles the disillusionment and travails of a dozen or so 2008 Obama voters who will not vote for him a second time.  These are the voters who, in 2008, pulled Barack Obama across the finish line.

My biggest takeaway from the movie is the day-to-day struggle that life under Barack Obama has been for a substantial chunk of Obama's own voters.  While life has been (very) challenging for us all, for these 2008 Obama voters Obama's economic devastation is acute and unrelenting.  Comments like "I have never been more broke in my life," "I'm sick of only having ten dollars in my bank account," and "I am not seeing one ounce of benefit for all this debt" illustrate the economic calamity these 2008 Obama voters face.

For these 2008 Obama voters, Barack Obama's policies have been inexplicable and infuriating.  It started with the bailouts.  For these 2008 Obama voters, "bailing out car companies and banks surprised a lot of people."  Alongside the bailouts, "the stimulus was a shocker as well" because "I don't know where all this money is going," when, in reality, "we just printed more money."  Making matters worse, "I got really scared when I saw the Health Care package" since "the more I understood, the more I became concerned" when "there were better solutions" than this "tax on the middle class."  Obama's policies are divorced from these 2008 Obama voters' lives, but they understand they're getting stuck with the bill; "it's a complete hustle and we're the butt of the joke."  The anger is palpable.

For conservatives, it's important to understand that persuadable 2008 Obama voters aren't the morons or Jon Stewart's audience.  These are the folks Andrew Breitbart famously referred to as "Democrats by Osmosis."  Their family or social circle were Democrat, and they went along without thinking.  Most important, their underlying values are conservative.  Barack Obama has alienated the voters who pulled him across the finish line in 2008: "I work hard for what I have and I resent being told I have to give it to someone else."  In 2012, as Scott Rasmussen explained at RightOnline, we need to hammer results and record.  Over the longer term, however, we need to educate them to think ideologically.

On a personal note, I was struck by the section on National Security issues.  As regular readers know, I've been freaking out about National Security for the past couple months.  Persuadable 2008 Obama voters agree: "the United States is not respected the way it used to be" because Obama "has shown more weakness than strength."  For the record, all these interviews were conducted after the bin Laden raid but before our embassies were attacked.  For conservatives, this is a very encouraging sign.

For those of us who want to destroy the institutional left, "the Hope and the Change" is a priceless guide to the rest of this cycle and what comes next.  A substantial chunk of Barack Obama's 2008 voters do not share Obama's satanic values.  Persuadable Obama 2008 voters have conservative values, they just vote Democrat by default.  Between now and election day, hammer results; after election day, however, these folks need ideological education.  The good news is that these folks are very open to what we have to say, and "the Hope and the Change" is a fantastic guide for their concerns.

Author's note: Quotes are transcribed by hand; while a word or two might be off, the spirit is accurate.

Glenn's Hypothesis: What's REALLY happening in Libya

Yesterday, Glenn Beck outlined a hypothesis he has about the 'embassy' attack in Libya, it's chilling and needs more exposure:


Highlights -- What we know:

• What do we know about Benghazi?!?  It's VERY dangerous and an ambassador would NEVER go in there without a major security detail.  This guy didn't.

• The CIA will look for missing weapons (like the one we gave the Libyan rebels last year) under state department cover.

• During the uprising, we armed Al Qaeda in Bengazhi.

• If you knew everything was about to spin out of control, you'd want to remove any sign of American involvement.

• No actual ambassador would go into Bengazhi in an unarmored vehicle.

Speculation 

• This wasn't a consulate, this was a safe house.

The Walk of Shame Democrats

"he that keepeth company with harlots spendeth his substance." Proverbs 29:3

I've been trying to characterize the Democrat convention since it opened; today, it hit me.

The Democrat convention was a walk of shame.

The lame excuses and justifications Democrats offered for the corrupt devastation of the Barack Obama years are just as pathetic as the lame excuses and justifications people offer after one-night stands.

The walk of shame Democrats cannot defend 8%+ unemployment (which would be closer to 11% if they weren't cooking the books), $16 trillion in debt, health care corruption, running guns to Mexico, and appeasement abroad.  Instead, they excuse and justify their actions.  The walk of shame Democrats tell us "the crisis was worse than we thought," "Obama saved the auto industry," or "we got bin Laden."

Unfortunately, for the walk of shame Democrats, none of this is true.  Barack Obama didn't exactly undersell the crisis.  Obama's takeover of the auto companies was a corrupt boondoggle that rewarded Obama's union cronies.  Obama's version of the bin Laden raid is a fairy tale.  The walk of shame Democrats offer excuses and justifications to avoid the consequences of their actions.

The Barack Obama years wrought an orgy of destruction.  Incomes are down.  Divorce rates are up.  Food Stamp records are shattered.  Undaunted, the walk of shame Democrats ask America to continue gambling with the wages of sin.

We learned a lot about Democrats in Charlotte.  Facing entrenched unemployment, a looming debt crisis, and impending peril abroad, the walk of shame Democrats chose to define themselves as the party of subsidized fornication.  Sadly, that's all you need to know.

How Leaks and Politics Threaten National Security

OPSEC team, a new organization of spooks and soldiers dedicated to protecting National Security secrets, takes Team Obama to task for leaking sensitive information about National Security:



Highlights:

• Human Intelligence can take YEARS to gather -- This point needs emphasis.  These leaks shatter trust in the United States, not just the Obama administration.  Not only do Team Obama's leaks hurt our efforts now, they'll hurt our efforts for a generation.
• Their motive is to protect Operational Security against any political efforts to undermine it; I assume they'll still be here after Mitt takes over.
• "Mr President, you DID NOT KILL bin Laden; America did."
• The bin Laden raid couldn't be repeated, because too many operational secrets have been revealed.
• Days after the bin Laden raid, Hollywood was invited to the WH for a briefing.

Caffeinated Thoughts has more.

On Releasing the Blind Sheikh

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist...in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3.


"The Blind Sheikh is the most famous international terrorist ever tried in the United States, and among the most dangerous ever prosecuted anywhere....After all, Osama [sic] bin Laden credits Abdel Rahman with having issued the fatwas approving the 9/11 attacks, the most horrific acts of terrorism in American history, direct from the federal penitentiary I helped put him in."  Andy McCarthy, Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad, p. 91.


In June, the Obama administration issued a visa to enter the United States to Hani Nour Aldin, an operative of the Egyptian Jihadist organization Ga'amat al-Islamia.  While in Washington, Aldin met with Obama administration officials, where apparently they discussed releasing the Blind Sheikh.  This is a VERY dangerous development, and it needs to be stopped.

First things first, who is the Blind Sheikh?!?

Omar Abdel Rahman was born in Egypt in 1938, and lost his sight to diabetes in 1942.  Known as the 'Emir of Jihad,' Abdel Rahman rose through the Islamist ranks in the 1970's.  He was imprisoned for three years following his widely suspected role in the 1981 assassination of Egyptian dictator of Anwar Sadat; Abdel Rahman's trial in the Sadat affair remains a legendary piece of Jihadist propaganda (49).  Following his acquittal, the Blind Sheikh moved to Afghanistan, where he exercised "great influence over the so called 'Arab-Afghans;' who joined the mujahideen resistance against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.(25)"  In Afghanistan, his relationship with Usama bin Laden flourished.  Following the Afghan jihad, the Blind Sheikh relocated to Brooklyn, where he provided spiritual 'guidance' to a terrorist cell that was responsible for the 1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and the foiled 1994 NYC Landmarks Plot.  In 1995, he was convicted for Seditious Conspiracy against the United States and sentenced to life in Prison.  Ever since, his release from American custody has been a major Jihadist goal.

While the comparison is imprecise, the Blind Sheikh can be reasonably understood as Usama bin Laden's predecessor.  As Andy McCarthy explains, "the Blind Sheikh admired the Grand Ayatollah [Kohmeini], and harbored dreams of an Egyptian replication of the Iranian coup d'etat. (35)"  Sadly, this longstanding Jihadist objective is now reality.  A Blind Sheikh released into a newly Islamicized Egypt could wreak untold havoc.  And the Obama administration is apparently giving serious consideration to his release.

Releasing the Blind Sheikh would be an act of treason against the United States, as defined in Article III, Section 3.  The Blind Sheikh is clearly an enemy of the United States, and his release would clearly be an act of "adherence," "aid," and "comfort."  It's important to establish the terms of the debate now, and to give Barack Obama advance notice, in order for Barack Obama to be held properly accountable should he chose to release the Blind Sheikh.