Citizens Urged to Get Involved Identifying Terrorist Threats

After reading a WTOP radio report about the disastrous impact a sequester will allegedly have on the nation’s intelligence-gathering capabilities, I came to the tongue-in-cheek conclusion that it’s time to get every American citizen involved in the fight against terror.  Toward that end, I’m sharing anew the Top 5 Signs Your Neighbors Might Be Terrorists that I shared with my readers for the first time almost six years ago.

Copyright © 2013 Bob McCarty, L.L.C.  All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2013 Bob McCarty, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Below is a recap of the information aimed at helping Americans identify possible terrorist threats and, thereby, prevent much heartache an anguish.

1.  Your neighbors might be terrorists if they have a yellow “Bomber On Board” sign for each of their children in the rear window of their minivan.

2.  Your neighbors might be terrorists if they invite your kids to attend their child’s birthday party at the Build-A-Bomb Workshop.

3.  Your neighbors might be terrorists if their kids take Bomber’s Ed Class instead of Driver’s Ed in high school — and their high school offers the class!

4.  Your neighbors might be terrorists if they give their kids the keys to shiny new car-bombs on their 16th birthdays.

5.  Your neighbors might be terrorists if the camp they send their kids to every summer is located in North Africa.

Please take head of this information, then share it far and wide.  I thank you and, I’m certain, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano thanks you.

Order Books Graphic LR 6-15-13

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Fiction Becomes Reality as Department of Homeland Security Preps Launch of ‘Green Police’

As I read through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security‘s February 2012 document, Environmental Justice Strategy, I was reminded of a post I had published around the time of the National Football League’s 2010 Super Bowl.  It included one spot lifted from a series of tongue-in-cheek Audi commercials in which members of the “Green Police” are shown “protecting and conserving the Earth.”

Now, it appears fiction is becoming reality as Janet Napolitano‘s crew is preparing to launch a real-world Green Police with an “environmental justice” strategy based on the vision statement below:

“Environmental justice” describes the commitment of the Federal Government, through its policies, programs, and activities, to avoid placing disproportionately high and adverse effects on the human health and environment of minority or low-income populations. As described in the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), our Nation’s vision of homeland security is a homeland safe and secure, resilient against terrorism and other hazards, and where American interests and aspirations and the American way of life can thrive. In seeking to fulfill this vision, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) aspires to avoid burdening minority and low-income populations with a disproportionate share of any adverse human health or environmental risks associated with our efforts to secure the Nation. DHS joins with other departments and agencies to appropriately include environmental justice practices in our larger mission efforts involving federal law enforcement and emergency response activities.

Please vote wisely in 2012.

Hat tip:  InfoWars

CRASS COMMERCIAL MESSAGE:  Be sure to order a copy of my book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Online ‘Turkey Fryer’ Search Proves Duplication of Effort Rampant Throughout Federal Government

As recently as last week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was one of a handful of members of Congress who asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate possible “duplication of effort and internal redundancies” involving agencies of the federal government.  With that fresh on my mind, I was struck by a troubling question when I saw the Drudge Report’s top afternoon story, TERROR: BIG SIS ISSUES TURKEY WARNINGWhat business is it of Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security to stick her agency’s bureaucratic nose into my Thanksgiving feast?

I decided to investigate.

A quick online search of “turkey fryer” and “.gov” yielded a plethora of information produced by federal government agencies:

The U.S. Fire Administration, a subsidiary of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, offers cooking fire safety tips;

The Consumer Product Safety Commission offers safety tips for turkey fryers; offers a list of cooking tips for Thanksgiving that includes links to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and to Underwriter’s Laboratory’s turkey fryer safety tips site; and offers Turkey FUNdamentals: Deep Fat Frying a Turkey at its website.

In addition to leading me to the federal government agencies’ websites listed above, my search yielded more than a half-million links to other webpages — most of which appear on state and local government websites — discussing safety concerns related to the use of turkey fryers.

MY POINT:  Anyone who thinks the size of the federal government is “just right” and that no duplication of effort takes place can take the information above and stuff it.  Into their turkey.  On Thanksgiving Day.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Will MSM Cover Trial of Accused Killer in Bus Station Shooting on Eve of 9-11 Anniversary? (Update)

A preliminary hearing for Mohamed H. Dawod is set to take place Oct. 12.  Now, one question remains:  Will the mainstream media show any interest in the case that involves a man with a Muslim name allegedly shooting a man he didn’t know in a public place on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States?

Mohamed H. Dawod

A 25-year-old man from Glendale, Ariz., Dawod pleaded not guilty Monday to charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the Sept. 8 shooting death of Justin Hall, 32, of Mt. Vernon, Ohio, at a Greyhound bus station in Springfield, Mo.

On Oct. 12, Dawod will appear before Judge Mark Fitzsimmons at 9 a.m. inside a courtroom at the Greene County (Mo.) Courthouse to answer charges that he shot and killed Hall in front of a crowd of fellow passengers on the bus traveling from Amarillo, Texas, to St. Louis.

Now, especially for members of the mainstream media, I’ll offer some background on the case.

In my first report on the shooting, published the morning of Sept. 9, I wondered whether or not this was a case of terrorism but reported it as only a possibility after officials in the Southwest Missouri community quickly said the shooting appeared random.

In an update several hours later, I cited a local television station report that raised questions about the alleged randomness of the shooting when it quoted Springfield police officials as saying that, because of a language barrier, they had only learned Dawod’s name and had asked the FBI to help them with the investigation.  In other words, I wondered how they could declare a shooting “random” if they were not able to communicate with the suspect.

In the same update, I shared a telling paragraph from the same television station report:

Ten separate witnesses say they did not notice the men fighting or arguing before the shooting. One passenger said she watched the suspect wander around the terminal until the call to line up to re-board the bus. “She then observed the suspect remove a silver and black handgun from a back pack he was carrying,” the officer wrote. “The suspect then pointed the handgun upward while saying something. The witness could not understand what the suspect said and didn’t know if he was speaking English.” No matter what was said the witness said Hall didn’t react or turn around. Shortly after the witness says Dawod shot him from a few feet away.

I also asked another question:

Could it be that, when the man pointed the handgun in the air, he shouted, “Alluh Akbar,” the cry that’s been heard coming from the mouths of so many Islamic extremists moments before they suffer from so-called “sudden jihad syndrome”?

Now, fast-forward to two days ago when I offered another update that contained stunning details that had been published in another local news report.

Based largely on interviews with three people who were at the scene of the shooting, the report noted two observations — that the shooter tried to fire again but could not because his gun jammed and that the witnesses believed the shooter intended to shoot several people — that I had already reported in my original post.

In addition, however, it noted that Patrick Beeman, a friend and traveling companion of the victim, said Dawod asked police a question in English after he was arrested:  “He said, ‘if I quit shooting at people, can I get back on the bus?’”  So Dawod does speak English.

I concluded that update with an observation, writing:  The extent to which Dawod might carry out his version of “legal jihad” — that is, causing the U.S. court system to waste as much time, effort and money as possible on his case — remains to be seen.

What else remains to be seen is the extent to which the mainstream news media outside of Springfield covers this case if, indeed, they cover it at all.  After all, neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security have breathed a peep about the possibility of this being a pre-9/11 anniversary terror attack.

Now, if he had been a member of the Tea Party Movement — WHOA! — things would be different!

UPDATE 9/18/11 at 8:18 a.m. Central:  Cross-posted at Andrew Breitbart’s

UPDATE 9/28/11 at 9:27 a.m. Central:  Listen to Klein Online Investigative Radio Sunday (2-4 p.m. EST) as I’ll be a guest, discussing this story with host Aaron Klein.

UPDATE 9/29/11 at 11:09 a.m. Central:  Looks like Dawod had a 9-inch knife and plenty of ammo when arrested, according to this report.

UPDATE 10/13/11 at 7:34 a.m. Central:  Dawod had a public defender appointed to represent him during a hearing yesterday, according to a Springfield (Mo.) News Leader report, and another hearing has been set to take place Nov. 28.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Dick Durbin Hunting for Muslim Votes

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

The Democratic Party is the oldest of the two major U.S. political parties.  It was first organized in the early 1790s by anti-federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, as the Democratic-Republican Party.  Unlike the Democratic Party of today, it was distinguishable by its support for states’ rights and strict adherence to constitutional principles.

The modern Democratic Party was born in February 1825 following the disputed presidential election of 1824. In that election, between John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts; Henry Clay of Kentucky; William H. Crawford of Georgia; and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, Jackson won a plurality of both the national popular vote and the electoral vote.  However, since he had failed to win a clear majority of the electoral votes, the 12th Amendment dictated that the names of the top three candidates… Adams, Crawford, and Jackson… be sent to the House of Representatives, presided over by none other than Speaker Henry Clay, for the final selection.

Clay threw his support to Adams, who became the sixth president of the United States; Jackson resigned from the Senate and launched a campaign for the party’s 1828 nomination; and Clay relinquished the Speaker’s gavel to become Secretary of State in the Adams Administration.  The Jackson faction of the party, referring to the highly-suspicious Adams-Clay alliance as a “corrupt bargain,” split off from the party and established the Democratic Party.  It was out of that “corrupt bargain” that the DNA of the modern Democratic Party was formed.

In the years between 1825 and 1860, as abolitionist sentiment gained more and more support, the Democratic Party, north and south, became the party of slavery, championing such pro-slavery laws as the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Fugitive Slave Law.  Then, after opposing Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Democrats opposed ratification of the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery; the 14th Amendment, granting citizenship to the freed slaves; and the 15th Amendment, which gave voting rights to the freed slaves.

Following the Civil War, in states where they held essentially one-party control, Democrats enacted Black Codes and an endless variety of Jim Crow laws.  In 1866, as a means of ensuring the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws were fully enforced, Democrats created a paramilitary auxiliary, the Ku Klux Klan.

In the remaining years of the 19th century, Democrats established an unbroken record of opposition to civil rights legislation. They opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the First Reconstruction Act of 1867, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Force Act of 1871, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.  Then, after regaining control of Congress and the White House in the 1890s, Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894, repealing much of the civil rights legislation enacted by Republicans in the decades since the Civil War.

Later, in the mid-20th century, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and the Equal Employment Act of 1972 became law only with strong Republican support.  All of those bills received strong opposition from Democrats in one-party states, mostly in the South.

During the 1930s, Democrats began to build a coalition of special interest groups.  With the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, giving workers the right to organize unions and to engage in collective bargaining with employers, Democrats saw an opportunity to capture a stable and reliable voting bloc.  If they could convince working men and women that they were the sole protectors of their unique government-created “right” to hold hostage the private property of the owners of business, they would be the beneficiaries of many millions of dollars during each campaign season and tens of millions of votes on Election Day.  Since that day, Democrats have been the dutiful servants of the labor bosses.  Whatever labor has wanted, labor got… no matter how ethically or economically ill-advised the demand.


Rosa Parks

Then came Brown v. Board of Education, Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott, Orville Faubus and the Little Rock Central High School, Bull Connor and Lester Maddox, and suddenly everything changed. African-Americans were suddenly knocking at the door, demanding access to the American Dream, and they had every right to do so.  But they had a decision to make.  Would they be consumed by the irresistible narcotic of the welfare state, or would they recognize that the only true economic progress in America is not class progress, but individual progress, and opt for the sure rewards of education, opportunity, and hard work?

We all know what happened.  African-Americans turned their backs on the Republican Party, the party that was born out of opposition to slavery, the party whose members had shed their blood and their treasure to free their forbears from the bonds of slavery. Instead, their leaders opted for the “free lunch” promised by Democrats and they filed, en masse, into the Democratic Party where, to this day, they faithfully and blindly pull the Democrat lever on Election Day.

In more recent times, Democrats can be seen courting not only the votes of Hispanic citizens, but the votes of illegal immigrants, as well. While illegal aliens stream across our porous borders by the millions, bringing tons of drugs along with them, Democrats refuse to enforce immigration laws and offer the illegals generous taxpayer-funded education, medical, and welfare benefits.

In 1962, Rachel Carson published her book, “Silent Spring,” which attacked the use of chemical pesticides.  Her book led to a ban on DDT and other pesticides and a grassroots environmental movement was born.  Yet, in spite of the fact that scientific studies show conclusively that DDT is not a carcinogen, the EPA lists DDT as a ‘probable human carcinogen’… but only if ingested in large quantities.  Nevertheless, it was yet another opportunity for Democrats to make political capital out of a bogus public issue based on questionable science and embraced by a large and dedicated following… many of them wealthy, well-educated, and blindly idealistic.

It is of no apparent concern to Democrats that, since DDT was banned by a Democratic Congress in 1972, more than 50,000,000 people have died of malaria.  The World Health Organization reported that, in the year 2000 alone, malaria infected more than 300 million people, killing some 2,000,000… mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.  Most fatalities today are children, who die at the rate of two per minute or 3,000 per day.  Yet, so long as Democrats have their campaign coffers filled by radical environmentalists they will continue to do their bidding… no questions asked.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano talks with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

In subsequent years, Democrats have embraced the agendas of numerous other special interests, all having just one thing in common: they all want something from government.  These include trial lawyers, radical feminists, abortion rights advocates, public school teachers, public employees, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people.  But now it appears that Democrats are looking to add yet another loyal voting bloc to their coalition.  They’ve sent Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), their second-ranking Senate leader, on a hunting expedition to capture the American Muslim vote… both radicals and moderates.

In the wake of hearings held by U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, into charges that homegrown Muslims are being radicalized by ideologues in mosques all across the country, Senate Democrats held an “anti-King hearing,” on Tuesday, March 29, chaired by none other than Dick Durbin, himself.  It was an apparent attempt to show that the guys who took down the World Trade Center, the guys who flew a plane into the Pentagon, the guy who slaughtered 13 and wounded 29 at Fort Hood, and dozens more, were just a bunch of misunderstood eccentrics.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, a photograph has circulated in the mainstream media showing a smiling Dick Durbin at an early March gathering of Muslim clerics at the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation in Chicago. As described by Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, of the eight men photographed with Durbin, six are allied with Hamas, the Palestinian terror group; five are unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial; and four of the eight have made statements calling for the killing of Jews.

Should they be successful, it will be interesting to visualize future Democratic conventions. Just picture the thugs of the AFL-CIO, ACORN, and SEIU conducting seminars for teachers and Code Pink pacifists on how to beat up little old ladies at Tea Party rallies. Picture the blacks and the Hispanics beating the tar out of each other because blacks are tired of hearing Mexicans say that blacks are too lazy and too spoiled to do stoop-labor.  But most interesting of all, picture what happens when a bunch of radical jihadists get a little high from sniffing the smoke in one of the Democrats’ smoke-filled rooms and wander into a ballroom where gays, lesbians and transvestites are enjoying a no-holds-barred meet-and-greet.  Where the jihadists come from, men are beheaded and women are stoned to death for that sort of thing, but in Democratic circles it will just be viewed as business as usual.

If Democrats are so determined to make themselves bullet-proof, politically, one wonders why they haven’t embraced the political agenda of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Could it be that pedophiles just don’t bring enough money or enough votes to the table?  Happy hunting, Dick!  Better you than us.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Mexican Trucks Inch Closer to U.S. Highways

Independent American truckers are not happy about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s announcement Friday that included details of a proposed, phased long-haul, cross-border trucking program between the United States and Mexico.

“This is the wrong plan at the wrong time for numerous reasons,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. “It’s irresponsible and reckless. The Administration must reconsider or Congress must step in again to force them to do the right thing.”

The majority of trucking companies based in the U.S. are small businesses, according to an OOIDA news release.  As many as 93 percent of all motor carriers have fewer than 20 trucks in their fleets and 78 percent of motor carriers have fleets of six or fewer trucks.  Owner-operator fleets averaging slightly more than one truck represent nearly half the total number of heavy-duty commercial trucks operated in the U.S.

Those trucking companies and truck drivers must contend with ever-increasing safety, homeland security and environmental regulations that dramatically affect their costs of operation as well as their ability to make a living at their chosen profession.  Mexico does not have an even remotely equivalent regulatory regime for its trucking industry and drivers.

“The onus is on Mexico to raise the safety, security and environmental standards for their trucking industry,” Spencer said. “We should not allow ourselves to be harassed or blackmailed into lowering ours.”

Mexico first imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports close to two years ago. OOIDA contends the legality of the original tariffs should have been challenged.

“Succumbing to Mexico’s bullying provides a handy attack plan for them and other governments in future trade disputes,” Spencer noted.

Despite the tariffs, based on numbers released by DOT in March 2011, truck-based trade with Mexico surged by 27.6 percent last year to a total of $320.3 billion, and the bulk of this increase was from U.S. goods going to Mexico.

“They need to stop placating Mexico’s government and start fighting for the Americans they are supposed to represent,” said Spencer. “If they follow through with this, the Administration will be jeopardizing the livelihoods of millions of Americans.”

Independent truckers and others who want to comment on the proposed plan have 30 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register to submit comments about the plan.

Today’s announcement comes three months after truckers reacted to DOT’s Mexican trucking proposal, almost a year after I asked reader the question, Will Mexican Truck Drivers With Criminal Records Soon Be Driving on U.S. Highways? and more than a year after I reported news about an explosives theft qualifying as a “near-miss” for USA.

More to come on this one.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Border Fence Project Buried by Homeland Security

Having spent a number of years in the media relations business, I’m familiar with the concept of releasing “bad news” on Friday.  Yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano used that approach to share news about her decision to cancel the Secure Border Initiative (a.k.a., “electronic fence”) that was supposed to help safeguard the nation’s southern border.

Late Friday night, I came across a article about the cancellation of the project which, so far, has cost taxpayers more than $1 billion.  That article contained a reference to a written statement (below) that was attributed to “Big Sis” Napolitano:

“SBInet cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border-security technology solution.”

Hoping to read the official statement with my own eyes, I visited the DHS web site’s “Press Room.” There, however, I found nothing published.  In fact, the most-recent entry, as shown in the graphic below, was dated Jan. 8.

Next, I visited PRNewswire for Journalists where I have an account.  Again, nothing.

Growing frustrated, I visited the Customs & Border Patrol’s “National News Releases” and “Speeches and Statements” pages.   As shown in the screenshots below, I found nothing there.

Though doubtful I would find anything, I returned to the DHS web site and entered the phrase, “Border Fence,” in the site’s search box.  When the results appeared, I clicked on the link, DHS | Southwest Border Fence.  A new “rabbit chase” began.

I scrolled about halfway down the page and clicked on another link, “More on border fence. Again, nothing, so I scrolled down again until I saw a link to the SBInet program.  When I clicked on the link, a “404 – Page Not Found” error appeared before my eyes — a fitting description of a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!