Two Great Americans Are Dead

Unfortunately, the Obama regime is more interested in protecting their own hide, than they are in telling the truth, and letting the American know exactly what unfortunate events led to Border Guard Brian Terry’s and Ambassadors Chris Steven’s untimely deaths. Thanks to the journalists at Univision, who continue to pursue this issue unlike our own “journalists”, it is now being learned that the size and scope of Fast & Furious gun walking scandal is growing, and resulting in more Mexican National deaths than previously known. In fact, we are now learning that guns purchased in Phoenix found their way into hands of drug traffickers in Honduras, Puerto Rico and Columbia. Of course, when the Congressional investigation of this issue became uncomfortable for the regime, Obama invoked Executive Privilege in an effort to protect himself and his close friend Attorney General Eric Holder, with little to no regard to the Terry family. Disgusting, doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Now let’s look at the most recent death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, which we are learning could have been prevented had the administration heeded warnings in advance of potential unrest, Steven’s own warnings in his journal of which I have to think he let someone know, and the fact that the Obama regime didn’t see fit to provide any additional security on the anniversary of September 11, despite the fact that Gaddafi was recently deposed and the country is still in turmoil. Obama chose instead to ignore common sense, in favor of fund raising, campaigning, and schmoozing with Jay Z and the ladies on the View, and then rushed out UN Ambassador Susan Rice to lie, and say that the attacks were spontaneous and unexpected. Disgusting again, doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Folks, we need to do better, and Romney deserves your vote in November.

25 thoughts on “Two Great Americans Are Dead

  1. Amazona September 29, 2012 / 2:14 pm

    A few days ago James flipped out when I mentioned the Fast and Furious episode, and I did not have the time to address his claims at the time.

    First, let me say I made a mistake when I said there had been a conspiracy between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, regarding various aspects of Fast and Furious. I was wrong. The Judicial Branch was not, as far as I know, involved in F&F. The conspiracy was within the Executive Branch, which is where the Department of Justice is located, and it included various agencies and personnel in that department.

    We know that the DoJ approved the illegal sale of weapons to criminals in Mexico. We know that many Mexicans were killed as the direct result of the use of these weapons,as well as a Border Patrol agent and an informant for the U.S. government.

    It has recently been alleged, by a high-ranking member of the Sinaloa drug cartel, the collusion between our government and the cartel went far beyond merely supplying them with weapons. (And here it should be noted that these weapons included Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles.)

    There is testimony that the United States Government also actively sided with the Sinaloa Cartel, not only arming it in a Divide and Conquer strategy to weaken the cartel’s competition in the drug trade but approving of drugs being brought into the United States by this cartel.

    In a motion for discovery for defendant Vicente Jesus Zambada-Niebla, attorney Alvin S. Michaelson has made some very significant allegations, which appear to be quite consistent with what has already been proved regarding Fast and Furious.

    I am paraphrasing some of the motion and quoting other parts, and any emphasis is mine.

    Mr. Michaelson asserts that Humberto Loya-Castro (Loya) is a high ranking member of the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, and was working as an informant for the U.S. government, providing information on the activities of other drug cartels in exchange for immunity from prosecution for the criminal activities of the Sinaloa Cartel. His brief, asking for disclosure of government documents and information, states that Loya was indicted, along with two other high-ranking Sinaloa criminals, referred to as Mayo and Chapo, “…in 1995 in the Southern District of California and charged with participation in a massive narcotics trafficking conspiracy . (Case No. 95CR0973). That case was dismissed on the prosecution’s own motion in 2008 after Loya became an informant for the United States government and had provided information for a period of over ten years.

    Sometime prior to 2004, and continuing through the time period covered in the indictment, the United States government entered into an agreement with Loya and the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, including Mayo and Chapo. Under that agreement, the Sinaloa Cartel, through Loya, was to provide information accumulated by Mayo, Chapo, and others, against rival Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations to the United States government. In return, the United States government agreed to dismiss the prosecution of the pending case against Loya, not to interfere with his drug trafficking activities and those of the Sinaloa Cartel, to not actively prosecute him, Chapo, Mayo, and the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, and to not apprehend them. The Defendant is alleged in the indictment to be a high ranking member of the Sinaloa Cartel. “

    ……………. When Mr. Zambada-Niebla met voluntarily with the government agents in Mexico City in the presence of Mr. Loya-Castro, the aforementioned assurances were repeated to Mr. Zambada-Niebla. Mr. Zambada-Niebla was told he would not be arrested, that the agents knew of his prior cooperation through Loya, and that they just wanted to continue receiving information from him. Mr. Zambada-Niebla was also told that the arrangements with him had been approved at the highest levels of the United States government. Mr.Zambada-Niebla was told that a Washington, D.C. indictment would be dismissed and that he would be immune from further prosecution. There is also evidence that at the hotel, Mr. Zambada-Niebla did accept the agreement and thereafter in reliance on that agreement, provided further information regarding rival drug cartels. Mr. Zambada-Niebla was told that the government agents were satisfied with the information he had provided to them and that arrangements would be made to meet with him again. Mr. Zambada-Niebla then left the meeting.

    The request goes on to say: “On July 5, 2011, representative Issa and Senator Grassley sent a letter to United States Attorney General Eric Holder suggesting that multiple United States agencies were employing as informants members of Mexican drug organizations who were responsible for importing into their nation thousands of weapons from the United States, leading to more than forty thousand homicides in Mexico’s drug war since late 2006. Acting Director of the ATF Kenneth Melson has also asserted that cartel leaders were paid informants of the DEA and FBI and were among the individuals who knowingly received weapons pursuant to “Operation Fast & Furious.” Several of the requests in Mr. Zambada-Niebla’s request for discovery re public authority defense are focused on obtaining government information to determine whether leaders and/or members of the Sinaloa Cartel were among the individuals who received the weapons and to determine whether their receiving of the weapons was pursuant to the agreement that was originally entered into between the United States government and Mr. Loya-Castro and the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, which is still in effect.

    Director Melson confirms what Mr. Zambada-Niebla is asserting in the matter before this Court; i.e. that the United States government at its highest levels entered into agreements with cartel leaders to act as informants against rival cartels and received benefits in return, including, but not limited to, access to thousands of weapons which helped them continue their business of smuggling drugs into Chicago and throughout the United States, and to continue wreaking havoc on the citizens and law enforcement in Mexico. It is clear that some of the weapons were deliberately allowed by the FBI and other government representatives to end up in the hands of the Sinaloa Cartel and that among the people killed by those weapons were law enforcement officers. Mr. Zambada-Niebla believes that the documentation that he requests will confirm that the weapons received by Sinaloa Cartel members and its leaders in Operation “Fast & Furious” were provided under the agreement entered into between the United States government and Mr. Loya-Castro on behalf of the Sinaloa Cartel that is the subject of his defense re public authority. Mr. Zambada-Niebla believes that the documentation will also provide evidence showing that the United States government has a policy and pattern of providing benefits, including immunity, to cartel leaders, including the Sinaloa Cartel and their members, who are willing to provide information against rival drug cartels, as is alleged by Mr. Zambada-Niebla herein.

    Mr. Zambada-Niebla also requests in #42 that the United States government produce material relating to the 2003 “House of Death” murders, which took place in Juarez, Mexico, and were committed by United States government informants. As confirmed in the Joint Assessment Report prepared by government authorities investigating those murders, agents of the United States government had prior knowledge that murders were going to be committed by their informants but did not take any measures to either inform the Mexican government or the intended victims, because government representatives determined it was more important to protect the identity of their informants.

    Yes, this is prepared as part of a defense for a known drug lord, but it contains a significant amount of already proven fact, and the motion is compelling reading. It points out that F&F was only part of an overall agreement with the Sinaloa Cartel which included uninterrupted drug importation into the United States by the cartel as well as supplying weapons which were used to kill, not hundreds but thousands of Mexican people.

    My link is not good but I am sure the motion can be found by googling


    Case No. 09 CR 383 ) v. ) Judge Ruben Castillo ) VICENTE JESUS ZAMBADA-NIEBLA, ) __________________________________________)


    • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 2:27 pm

      From the same motion by Mr. Michaelson:

      “As Robert C. Bonner, the former head of the DEA and Commissioner of the United States Customs Department pointed out in his recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine titled “The New Cocaine Cowboys, How to Defeat Mexico’s Drug Cartels” (July/August 2010, p.25), the United States government’s plan to destroy the Cali and Medellin drug cartels in Colombia was based (as in this case) on giving carte blanche to rival cartels to continue their drug smuggling operations in the United States without concern for its associated death and destruction in both countries, in return for their assistance against the Cali and Medellin cartels. He makes it clear that in Colombia, “the objective was to dismantle and destroy the Cali and Medellin cartels-not to prevent drugs from being smuggled into the United States or to end their consumption” (p.42). He goes on to say “the United States must accept that the goal in Mexico is similar; the destruction of the large Mexican cartels, nothing more and nothing else” (p.42, 43)

  2. Cluster September 29, 2012 / 2:42 pm

    Very interesting information Amazona. I took your advise and googled Case No. 009, and found this:

    Defendant’s immunity motion is based upon investigations and interviews by defense counsel in Mexico and the United States, including interviews of Mexican citizen, Humberto Loya Castro (“Loya”).1 Loya is an attorney and Sinaloa Cartel member who in the late 1980s into the early 1990s became an adviser and confidante of, inter alia, the defendant, Joaquiz Guzman Loera (“Chapo”) and Ismael Zambada Garcia (“Mayo”) who are also charged here. Beginning in or about 1998 Loya entered into an agreement with the United States government through agents then of the Department of Justice, including the Immigration and 1 Defendant’s Motion For Discovery re Defense of Public Authority also recounts these facts in greater detail.
    1. Case: 1:09-cr-00383 Document #: 95 Filed: 07/29/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:385
    Naturalization Service, (now, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)) and the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). Under the agreement Loya was to provide information to the government, particularly about rival cartels, in return for immunity for Loya’s prior acts and continuing acts. Loya understood that this agreement was known and approved by attorneys in the Department of Justice and the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. In exchange for the information he provided, Loya was promised immunity for past and
    future activities involving the Sinaloa Cartel and that a federal indictment against him in San Diego would be dismissed. Indeed, in December of 2008, the case against Loya in San Diego was dismissed, representing the government’s fulfillment of its commitment to furnish transactional immunity. Nor has Loya been prosecuted for anything since that time. Defendant was party to the agreement between the United States government, through its officials, and the Sinaloa Cartel through Loya. Defendant had provided information that Loya transmitted to the government. Like Loya, he too was under indictment and the agreement contemplated that defendant would receive immunity as it did with Loya. In 2008, Loya advised the government that defendant was going henceforth to take the role of primary liaison on behalf of the Sinaloa Cartel with the United States government. A meeting took place in Mexico City between Loya and defendant on the one hand, and DEA agents from Washington and Mexico on the other. By the time of this meeting, the DEA had been investigating the case that gave rise to this indictment for at least eight months. A DEA agent named “Manny” [last name unknown] who had interacted extensively with Loya was there. Also present was a DEA agent named David and both agents made clear that they were there with the approval of attorneys in the Department of Justice in Washington. Other Washington-based DEA agents were also in the hotel. At this meeting defendant gave additional information. Attendance at the meeting from his secure location exposed the defendant to the danger of physical harm from others, including extremely dangerous cartels as to which defendant had valuable information. In addition, by traveling to Mexico City, defendant risked arrest by Mexican authorities.
    At the meeting, it was made clear that the existing agreement with the United States that covered Loya and defendant – i.e. that defendant was immunized for his actions – remained in place and would continue. Defendant was specifically told that he would receive immunity, not only under Loya’s prior agreement, but as an agreement with him personally and approved at the highest levels of the government. As further indication of the agreement that was in place, even though defendant had a federal warrant issued for his arrest and was physically in the presence of DEA agents, he was not arrested or detained in any way, but rather, was allowed freely to leave the hotel where the meeting took place. However, just a few hours after this meeting defendant was arrested, not by federal agents, but by Mexican authorities. He was taken into custody by Mexican authorities acting on their own although he was thereafter extradited to the United States on this case. But the ongoing agreement and commitment to grant him immunity had already been made and continued by federal agents acting with authority on behalf of the Department of Justice.

    This isn’t cool – at all. I do not like the immunity for “past and FUTURE” actions. That is just absurd. And from the timeline stated, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama are culpable. Our government doesn’t have the guts to do what is right, not only in this instance but in so many others – it’s time we see that they do.

    • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 2:52 pm

      Cluster, clearly this is a can of worms that does go back through two previous administrations.

      I do want to point out, however, that so far there does not seem to be a connection between Bush’s gunwalking effort and the support of the Sinaloa Cartel. Bush’s plan included the cooperation of the Mexican government and an effort to track the weapons through various means including surveillance and tracking devices planted in the weapons.

      When the tracking proved to be impossible, and when the devices were discovered and removed, the entire plan was scrapped.

      It appears that the Obama administration then tried to expand the immunity for drug activity into their own very different gun-walking scheme, which was perhaps in part designed to accelerate the elimination of the rival cartels but was evidently also to provide outrage in the United States over the ease with which the criminals were able to get guns from the U.S., to advance a Leftist gun control effort.

      So the misery and death associated with the drug use in the United States was then multiplied by the gun deaths of thousands of Mexicans, thanks to our arming the cartels we were also protecting from our legal system.

      • Cluster September 29, 2012 / 3:02 pm

        This just proves the old adage – “He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas”

        I am disgusted by this. We are perfectly capable of gaining intel on Mexican drug cartels on our own without employing the services of known killers, druggies and overall scum. They should put a bullet in Loya’s and Chapo’s heads when they had the chance.

      • Ricorun September 29, 2012 / 5:33 pm

        Cluster: We are perfectly capable of gaining intel on Mexican drug cartels on our own without employing the services of known killers, druggies and overall scum.

        Oh, really? Please explain.

        As much as I’d like an answer to that question, I want to commend you guys for doing an excellent job of reporting/informing on this issue. I’ve learned more from this post on B4V than I’ve learned from any other source. This might actually be a first. And like you I’m wondering WTF is really going on here? And likewise, how far up the chain did knowledge travel, i.e., what did specific people know and when did they know it? But the fact of the matter is that human intelligence is a very messy business — much messier than signals intelligence (which can be messy itself at times). Largely because of that, humint is exceedingly compartmentalized, with different command chains sequestered from each other, and only informed on a “need to know” basis. And at no single point or person does all the information come together about what all the people involved in a particular operation are doing. But one thing is for sure in any humint covert operation, the people closest to the ground (and their handlers) are the ones that suffer most when those operations are uncovered. And that usually only happens when an operation goes bad.

        But all that said (and getting back to the original question), I’m very interested in your thoughts on how we gain human intel on Mexican drug cartels without actually “employing the services of those within them — namely killers, druggies and overall scum”. Frankly, I don’t see how that’s possible in any sort of real world scenario. IMO, your opinion might fly in a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon against Boris and Natasha. But in the real world, not so much.

        Related to the above is the question of whether Ambassador Stevens, who was killed recently in the Libyan city of Benghazi, would have wanted more protection, even if it was offered. I don’t know it for a fact, but my guess is that more protection was offered, and that he rejected it because he realized that such protection would have long-term negative consequences vis-a-vis his ability to acquire actionable intelligence from the citizens of Benghazi.

        Maybe I’m wrong, and perhaps we’ll never know for sure. But certainly the backlash against the jihadi militias by the people of Benghazi suggests that the majority of the population supported Amb. Stevens and the USA’s efforts in supporting the revolution against Ghaddafi, and were deeply offended by the attack on the American consulate there. And IMO, those moderates are the people we should be working with — and convincing them that the way to true progress is resist the most radical elements among the population and to compromise with the least.

      • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 6:27 pm

        I agree, it would be hard to infiltrate a cartel, probably harder than infiltrating the Mob. But I also think that very harsh actions against what we do find would be effective—and no, I am not talking about criminal prosecution. If we can find, target and eliminate one man in Pakistan or Afghanistan with drone attacks we can certainly do so in Mexico. And I would start by wiping out the nest of Mexican drug criminals who have taken over our national park along the border. A few precision bomb attacks on vehicles and warehouses and convoys of drug movements would have a chilling effect.

        So would declaring war on the nation of Mexico the next time Mexican Army personnel fire across the Rio Grande to protect drug traffickers being chased by our Border Patrol, and going in within hours with full military might to go after these people. A ‘nudge nudge wink wink’ to the president of Mexico and a followup of “we won and now we’re going home, just like we always do” would take care of fallout for that.

        So would arming our Border Patrol with something more effective than bean bags —–sorry, Jan——and having these criminals face real firepower.

        So would real border protection, in the shape of fences, etc. Right now you can stroll across the Rio Grande. Why not dredge it out so it is a deep channel with a high bank on the U.S side, with a fence at the top of that, and channel Gulf water in on the east side and get a nice big river going. (Or channel west coast water—I don’t know the direction of flow of the RG.) Crank it up and make it a real barrier.

        So would getting rid of the totally insane NAFTA-related rule that now trucks from Mexico are not offloaded at the border with cargo reloaded into American trucks to continue on into the country, but Mexican trucks are waved on through, where they can go wherever they want. (And are not subject to our more stringent rules on vehicle safety and driver training.)

        As for who knew what in our government, the former head of the DEA and Commissioner of the United States Customs Department knew. Director of the ATF Kenneth Melson knew. Attorney General Eric Holder knew, and his boss, President Obama, protected information on who else knew by claiming executive privilege, which has so far only been claimed for information the PRESIDENT knows, not underlings.

        I am also not convinced that the people in Benghazi, if they truly liked Ambassador Stevens, would have been offended if he had armed protection on the anniversary of 9/11, in a city so chaotic and violent. I have heard that he asked that there be no armed guards, but then I have also heard that he was on a mission to try to find and possibly recover arms that represented what might be called Fast and Furious, Libya, which would have meant a certain degree of anonymity and maneuverability not allowed by a large protective detail. Somebody knows the truth about this and sooner or later somebody will talk. Till then, all we know is that we sent arms to the rebels, and an ambassador and his very small escort were all killed in a preplanned attack to mark the anniversary of 9/11, after repeated warnings of impending violence were ignored.

        Oh, and that the White House tried a coverup and lied to us for 9 days, blaming some silly trailer for a film that might not even exist.

      • Cluster September 29, 2012 / 10:54 pm

        I live in the target zone and have had a few discussions with Sheriff Paul Babeu in Pinal County who tells me and others that the cartels actually have sniper perches that they have found in the desert where they camp for days and stand look out for drug runners and shipments. They also land small aircraft in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere, drop their load and then coyotes come and get the product later. It’s quite the operation. But he also tells us that the county sheriff department has some under cover operatives that immerse themselves into the local culture to gain intel on name and whereabouts of the coyotes and have been fairly successful. If we can do that at a local level, I can imagine that the DEA could take it to another level and plant someone deeper inside. It would be dangerous to be sure, but it would be quick, because as soon as he learned the whereabouts of some key figures, I would call in the air strike and just take them out. These are people you don’t arrest. You kill them.

  3. Retired Spook September 29, 2012 / 3:14 pm

    I would not be at all surprised to discover (hopefully before the election) that we did almost the same thing in Libya. I’ll bet that a substantial number of heavy weapons that were used in the assault on the consulate and safe house were given to the insurgents by us as part of the “leading from behind” strategy. If that turns out to be true, simply voting this administration out of power on November 6th isn’t nearly a severe enough penalty IMO.

    • neocon1 September 29, 2012 / 5:48 pm

      this is what is NOT being reported…….

    • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 10:11 am


      Maybe I’m wrong,

      Finally you say something worth while, YUP

  4. Bob September 29, 2012 / 3:55 pm

    No one seems to have the legal authority or courage to bring any of the “criminals” in our current administration into any appropriate court where they could be subjected to the laws of this land. I think that we are currently living in a “lawless society” at the highest levels.

    • js02 September 29, 2012 / 5:25 pm

      and thats the biggest cartel we need to eliminate

      • Bob September 29, 2012 / 6:15 pm

        But I don’t understand how an election of “popular” legislators can do this.

  5. bozo September 29, 2012 / 4:40 pm

    Should Arizona block the resale of newly purchased guns in the parking lot just minutes after having bought them in the gun store? Maybe this IS a ruse to step up gun control by relaxing gun control laws, since you cons seem to be arguing in favor of controlling gun sales, since if the AZ AG had cracked down on this abuse, instead of looking the other way, none of this would have happened.

    I am a proud, licensed liberal gun owner, so I’d like it to be easier for people like me to purchase guns, and harder for Mexican nationals in Arizona parking lots to buy them. Call me crazy.

    • neocon1 September 29, 2012 / 5:16 pm

      Intelligence office says it got Libya attack wrong, not White House…

      WHY NOT HITLERYS???????????

    • neocon1 September 29, 2012 / 5:17 pm

      aint OPM GRAND????


    • neocon1 September 29, 2012 / 5:19 pm

      I WANT one………..

      Hot Item: Obama ‘Birther Certificate’ Trays Sell Out In NYC

      “Please know that the Obama Birther Certificate is limited and destined to be a collectible.”

      • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 10:07 am

        FIVE Great Americans Are Dead

    • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 6:04 pm

      I don’t need to call you crazy.

      Your posts speak for themselves.

    • neocon1 September 30, 2012 / 10:12 am

      Call me crazy.


  6. GMB September 29, 2012 / 6:55 pm

    Would it be fair to ask what would a Mitt administration do to clean this mess up and how would the guilty be punished? Do not forget that anyone who knows anything will most likely have been pardoned by Jan 20, 2013.

    They got away with killing one of our own citizens. They will walk free after Mitt’s inauguration.

    • Retired Spook September 30, 2012 / 8:55 am

      My wife and I have been life-long registered Republicans until 2006 when we re-registered as Independents. We re-registered again this year as Republicans.

      • dbschmidt September 30, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        Almost a life-long (some 30-odd years) Democrat until 2006 (because I always seemed to vote more Republican than Democrat) and finally became a Libertarian in 2008 after the great fiasco. No plans on changing anytime soon.

Comments are closed.