Let us know what you think of it.

On Saturday morning, May 28, Bexar County Sheriff Sergeant Kenneth Vann was ambushed at a local intersection in San Antonio responding to a (disturbance) call in the area. From the outset, the very telling part was what wasn't being written. But the words "multi-agency task force" was a signal (including FBI and US Marshals).

Over the past many months there have been debates and politically correct banter regarding whether the drug violence was crossing the border, and even whether Mexico was or was not a failed or failing state. Well, to most people familiar with things, there never was much question, even though public discussions were pretty hushed.

So the big question is why on May 25th, was a Lieutenant in the Bexar County Sheriff's narcotics office interviewed on the late local news and quoted as saying that she was "expecting drug violence anytime." Was a public statement like that needed (was it necessary to "throw down the gauntlet")?

The first reports identified the suspect vehicle as a small white car. But later, authorities changed that initial report to looking for a Ford F-150. Perhaps coincidentally, south of town there have been a number of modified pick-up trucks found abandoned that were connected to the cartels (modified with compartments either ripped out or created to allow secreting contraband).

With the "multi-agency" task force investigating the murder/assassination, an answer is certain to come. While other motives such as a random act of violence, a gang initiation killing or some personal vendetta against Sgt. Vann have been raised as alternates and need to remain on the table, was his killing sort of a "warning" that "yes, drug violence could happen anytime."

At this point, it should be left to law enforcement to investigate the crime, and for others to postulate about what happened. But I have been writing about the narco-terrorism south of the border for more than 6 years and probably longer. The long hot South Texas summer still lies ahead.

The reward has risen to $127,000. Sgt. Vann's funeral will be on Friday, June 3rd.

90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

In various publications, pictures of semi and fully automatic weapons have been displayed.

Throughout the months since Calderón mounted his effort to combat the drug cartels, one theme has been repeated. That theme? American guns and ammunition were being smuggled to Mexico from the border states and fueling the violence.

Time and again, it is repeated that American weapons and drug use are the cause the violence in Mexico. However, as with many statistics, the statement that 90% of the guns in Mexico originated in the U.S. is faulty. In fact, according to a clarification published by Fox News, only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. The key distinction is that serial numbers show that only 17% of the weapons can be traced to the United States.

The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

The problem with this argument has been periodic publication of pictures displaying some of the weapons taken in various raids. Knowledgeable observers commented then and now that many of the weapons such as M26A2 fragmentation grenades, M16, U.S. military-issued ammunition -- are not even sold in gun shows or gun shops. So from whence have they been purchased?

Now according to a U.S. Department of State document, in 2009, the United States sold the Mexican government $177 million worth of arms, of which $20 million was used for semi- and fully automatic weapons.

After looking at a warehouse full of high-powered weapons, allegedly stolen by a corrupt Mexican federal police officer, the informant said it was obvious to him that such weapons did not come from the "mom and pop" gun stores identified by the administration.

Aside from the fact that corruption in the Mexican police and military is no secret, additionally, and not surprisingly, it is also reported that "rogue elements" of the Guatemalan military have been selling military grade weapons to the cartels.

So, perhaps it is time for the Mexican government to look to itself to figure out how automatic weapons are finding their way to the cartels. And at the same time, while there is no question that some weapons are being purchased at gun shows and in gun shops in the U.S., the Administration should more closely examine its own sales of weapons to the Mexican government before pointing fingers at Texas gun shops.

This long and difficult war is not won. It is, however, being won.

So far:

Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says

Osama bin Laden, the face of terror, killed in Pakistan

Obama: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead

Senior ISI official confirms bin Laden killed

Osama Bin Laden Body Headed for Burial at Sea, Officials Say

Osama bin Laden killed in Pakistan

But a couple of things have transpired since Thursday that are certainly not business as usual, and how much each has to do with the news of a considered ceasefire between the Israelis and Hamas terrorists is a curious bit of conjecture.

First, on Sunday morning, Hamas' deputy foreign minister, Ghazi Hamad, appeared on Israeli state-run radio and Israel deployed its two existing "Iron Dome" defense systems ahead of schedule based on necessity. More densely populated Ashkelon and Beersheba, both near Gaza and within Hamas' range, were designated for Iron Dome defense. And Israel says the systems have intercepted at least 8 rockets bound for the Iron Dome-protected cities. Smaller towns and unpopulated areas remain unprotected. The Reuters report said that 120 rockets had been launched by Hamas total since Thursday, with the vast majority intended for closer, smaller Israeli towns than the two defended by the Iron Domes.

Anyone who claims to know definitively how much the Iron Dome defenses or the Hamas appeal in Hebrew impact the apparent suing for peace is kidding themselves. But because it can't be quantified does not mean it has no impact.

Personally, I'd suggest the Hamas deputy foreign minister appearing on Israeli radio speaking Hebrew in suing for a ceasefire has profound psychological significance for Hamas and Gaza Palestinians and less for Israelis. And I'd also suggest the Iron Dome rocket defenses have profound psychological significance for Israelis - all Israelis, not just those in Ashkelon or Beersheba - and less for Hamas, considering there are currently only two of them.

But either way and to whatever degree, both of these occurrences are most certainly new to this generations-old conflict.

The African leaders arrived in Tripoli earlier today as part of a delegation seeking to negotiate a truce in the Libyan conflict.

The roadmap calls for an end to hostilities, "diligent conveying of humanitarian aid" and "dialogue between the Libyan parties", the leaders said in a statement.

Sky's chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay, who is in Tripoli reporting under the restrictions of the Libyan authorities, said it could be the crucial first step towards peace.

It could be that "crucial first step towards peace" - and it could also be little to nothing. It all depends what one presumes to be the definition of 'peace.' Too many may likely read into this report a form of capitulation on the part of Qaddafi.

It is highly unlikely at this stage - a relative position of strength for Qaddafi - that a "road map to peace" has any road leading Qaddafi out of Tripoli.

Don't just take my word for it. Listen to the British Defence Secrectary, Liam Fox. "The truth is that the Gaddafi regime is quite well dug in," he said.

Why would Qaddafi, who still has the ability to slug it out with the 'rebels' indefinitely, suddenly capitulate? "Peace" and surrender, you see, are two entirely different things no matter how peace is defined. For Qaddafi, at this point, it's quite plausible that "peace" means something along the lines of "how about you boys quit blowing up my gear?"

Matt Lauer and a few CNN hosts may get excited about such a report, perhaps desiring to read more into it than is there, as the Obama administration requires a settled end to this for a face-saving exit. But you should be more cautious.

But when you have Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu predicting outright armed battles between his people and cartel gunmen, it is time to listen.

A gunbattle is all but certain, Babeu told The Arizona Republic, because his deputies and members of a regional SWAT team are now routinely working to stop smugglers from pushing cargo through Pinal. "We have had enough," Babeu said. "That's why we're going into these areas and sending a very clear message to the cartels: We see you and we're not going to let you through."

Our border with Mexico remains insecure. Frankly, I am tired of writing about this problem. It hasn't gotten any better since 2006 when I started writing here, and it isn't going away. Two years ago, ThreatsWatch posted America's Unacknowledged War

So the question again must be asked, what will it take? How many Americans need to die because of the cartels (on our side of the border)?

This raises another question that flared last week. Why would an American citizen knowingly cross to the Mexican side of the border? I heard an interview with the wife of the jet skier who was shot and killed on Falcon Lake last year. I am very sorry for her loss. I truly am. But in the interview it became clear that they crossed to the Mexican side of the border because they wanted to see a church. The same goes for the used truck buyers and everyone else. I am sorry for pain, suffering and loss of life. Why expose yourself to clear risk?

That said, the Egyptians protesting in Tahrir Square in Cairo erupted with vocalized anger when it became apparent in Mubarak's address that he was not stepping down and leaving.

It is amusing to listen to Wolf Blitzer at the end of the CNN broadcast clip below, as he is outwardly befuddled why the crowd was 'cheering.' Blitzer remarked, "Uh, I - I don't know why these crowds would seem to be exuberant, because it would seem to be disappointing. Uh, Mubarak seemed to be saying, uh, he was staying in business, uh, at least for the time being. He spoke about the scheduled elections. But, Fred, you're there on the scene at Tahrir Square. What do these folks think he said?" We presume Fred straightened Wolf Blitzer out in short order.

But Wolf Blitzer's confusion is less dangerous than the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's proffering of the notion that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" group. One is left to suppose that the Brotherhoods' remarkable secularism is why the group's faith is prominently part of its name, and that the restoration of the caliphate has no religious basis whatsoever.

It is one thing to argue the Muslim Brotherhood's social programs in Egypt and elsewhere. It's quite another to make the leap to a secular label.

Parting random thought...

There are great dangers of a leaderless revolution. Some have been quick to dismiss any comparisons between today's revolutionary Egypt and revolutionary Iran of 1979. Both began as truly a popular groundswell of discontent. Iran's revolution, like Egypt's, was also initially leaderless. Until it wasn't.

Caveat emptor.

Mubarak's sticking around in whatever capacity slows the race from anger to vacuum. It gives Egypt a better chance of emerging with a more thought-out representative governance than an immediate vacuum filled more with urgency than reason. The slower the transition, the better the chance of keeping the caliphate-seeking Muslim Brotherhood sidelined as an alternative is given chance to take shape.

As Egypt awaits Hosni Mubarak's address to the nation expected this evening, the speculation is rampant that he will step down with the speech. The people of Egypt will have suddenly and unexpectedly effected their own regime change.

When the Chief of Staff of the Egyptian army tells ABC News it is over, it's more than simple speculation about ttonight's coming events. When asked if Mubarak will leave Egypt after tonight, General Sami Enan said, "I can't say, but I can say this is over."

Even after tonight, there will be infinitely more questions than answers - for Egypt and its people, for the people under regimes in the region, and for security and the future of the Egyptian-Israeli peace.

But Egypt also matters far beyond the Middle East region. More than most busy Americans realize. The events in Egypt will directly impact our lives here at home for generations to come.

History is being made with futures in the balance. As the situations unfold, we will unpack the events with an eye and an ear ahead, explaining things as we see them and in plain English.

But this is not so regarding the simple domestic nature of the threat, sans the Obama administration's "right wing" identifier. For, even if not politically identifiable as "right wing" much to the political disappointment of the American Left, several threats and attacks originated with individuals who were American citizens - technically if not culturally.

And so it is acknowledged today by DHS Secretary Napolitano that "the threat facing us is at its most heightened state since [the September 11] attacks," and that "plots to attack America increasingly involve American residents and citizens." You know the principal suspects. US citizen Najibullah Zazi and his New York subway bombing plot. US resident Faisal Shahzad and his ill-fated attempt to detonate a propane tank-rigged car bomb in Times Square.

Yet, with all of the talk of the "homegrown" threat, the deadliest prime example is never spoken of by Janet Napolitano or the administration. Nidal Hasan, an Army major and radicalized Islamic extremist, shot and killed 14 soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood. He shouted "Allahu Akbar!" while firing, murdering. He was in contact with the same radical Yemeni-American al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al Awlaki that Napolitano cites in reference to other "homegrown" terrorists. Yet not a single mention in context with terrorist attacks.

Says Jim Robbins and the Washington Times editorial board:

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee recently concluded a year-long look into the circumstances of the domestic terror incident that took 14 lives. The committee report concluded that the Department of Defense and the FBI "collectively had sufficient information to have detected [Major Nidal] Hasan's radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it."

[...] The White House response to the Fort Hood massacre is a textbook study in denial and coverup. The Obama administration refused to admit it was a terrorist attack, calling it instead an example of "violence in the workplace." The Army's official "force protection" report whitewashed the incident and avoided any reference to Hasan's jihadist motivations. The message to the federal bureaucracy was that even when blood is spilled, even when a soldier slaughters his fellow troops with a cry of "Allah akbar," official silence will be maintained. Radical Islam is the hatred that dare not speak its name.

DHS Secretary Napolitano's elephant in the room is hardly Conspiratus Pachydermicus, but rather Jihadiyun Violentia Mahemicus. Ignoring it won't reduce the threat. Calling it something else won't bring back the dead. Certainly neither will save its future prey.

Following another cross border shooting this week in west Texas, Abbott has sent a letter to Congressman Lamar Smith, R-Tx21 and Congressman Peter King, R-NY3 highlighting the most recent shooting.

Yesterday, gunmen in Mexico fired across the border at American road workers in rural West Texas in rural West Texas. Law enforcement has indicated the shooting may have been an attempt by cartel operatives to scare the workers away from the cartels' drug smuggling operations in our country. Fortunately, no Americans were injured or killed in these incidents. But clearly, American lives are gravely threatened by the increasingly volatile situation on the border. As yesterday's incident demonstrates, the threat is not limited to stray bullets that miss their intended targets inside Mexico.

That is clearly what it has come to. Americans are at risk when doing their jobs or living their lives, "simply" (and innocently) for stumbling into an area where the drug cartels might be operating. Denials a numerous, but it is known that the cartels have established themselves "state-side" with warehouses and safe-houses,

The incursions and flying bulletts have been going on for some time now. Both Congressmen, Smith (Judiciary) and King (Homeland Security) now are Chairmen of their respective committees in the House of Representatives. Parts of Mr. Smith's district lie within 150-200 miles of the Texas border with Mexico. As for Mr. King, he has been aware of and concerned about the spill over of cartel aggression and violence perhaps earlier than most in Congress (see for a copy of a letter from Congressman King to me on the subject). Maybe Attorney General Abbott's letter will spur action this time.

This is not "just" a lapse in the use of border documents, it is a serious security risk. The problem is bigger. Part of the problem lies in the fact that many if not all of our border crossings and check points are undermanned.

...the auditors found that hundreds of thousands of people were still being waved through by customs officers without being referred for a secondary inspection. They also warned that if all the people who flouted the rules were sent for an extended second interview, it would overload customs officers.

Part of the problem also lies in the availability of secure border documents to begin with, along with recent questions of policy about border security. As recently as this Summer, questions were being raised about the possibility that the State Department issued card might be vulnerable to counterfeiting [see U.S. Immigration and Customs alert about counterfeit DSP-150 cards]

Further concern about our border security was raised this month when it was revealed that Mexican travelers woud soon be eligible to apply for a "trusted traveler" status . The concern here is specifically that the cartels might find ways to find and then exploit loopholes in the program. Another, pre-existing program, the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) was recently breached when two SENTRI trusted travelers were caught trying to bring contraband across the border into the U.S. through the SENTRI-only express border passage.

While we have a difficult time preventing illegal immigration, it seems we also have a continuing problem with border security policy and documents. Nearly a decade following the worst attack on our country, this is by far, "not over."

And yes, because of the banishment in some circles of the term, "War on Terrorism," the issues of how we deal with the enemy have become blurred. While the question of the definition of the word "war" itself is a subject of interest and debate that is not the topic for this morning (although one of my associates recently observed that the redefinition of the term "war" needed to account for non-state actors that aren't conventionally violent, but still damaging").

On the one hand we have the Attorney General of the United States (and many parts of the media) have shown outrage that Congress, specifically the Senate of the United States, tagged a provision on to a spending bill prohibiting the use of federal funds to transport "detainees" to the U.S. from Guantanamo for any purpose - including trials... Of course, this leads to the debate over whether the "detainees" (read that as individuals who directly or indirectly participated in or planned the attacks of September 11th, or who were captured either in the act of, or planning of acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens).

The recurring debate over whether terrorism defendants should be prosecuted in civilian courts or military commissions flared last month after a jury convicted the first Guantánamo detainee to receive a civilian trial on just one of 285 charges related to the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. While the defendant is still facing up to life in prison, critics said it showed that civilian trials risked acquittals.

Noting that this same article in the NY Times refers to WikiLeaks and the fact that contained in the illicit release of this material is a set of nearly 800 detainee "threat assessment" files, now, please, consider the word recidivism. Pronounce it once, \ri-ˈsi-də-ˌvi-zəm\. Essentially the word means "return to criminal behavior."

According to a report from the Director of National Intelligence, 25% of the "detainees" transferred from Guantanamo to other countries, have been confirm or suspected of returning to the battlefields (and wanting to kill Americans). Of the 150 recidivists, 13 have already been killed (and gone to meet their virgins) and 54 have been captured.

"The Intelligence Community assesses that the number of former detainees identified as reengaged in terrorist or insurgent activity will increase," the report says, adding, "if additional detainees are transferred from GTMO, some of them will reengage in terrorist or insurgent activities."

AND

"It is not unusual for former GTMO detainees to communicate with persons in terrorist organizations. The reasons for communication span from the mundane (reminiscing about shared experiences) to the nefarious (planning future terrorist operations)," the report says.

Even more distressing (if that is possible) is that more than half of the released detainees end up in Yemen where our State Department believes they are held for a few weeks before they are given their final release and treated by their jihadist friends as "rock stars" who wear their time in the detention center at Guantanamo as a "badge of honor."

OPINION: Political correctness is going to get Americans killed. Treating enemy combatants as criminals is going to result someday in having one of them released by a "jury of their peers."

Remember that Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was cleared of all but one of the 286 charges for his participation in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. It's only a matter of time before one of these "detainees" falls through the cracks of American justice and comes back to participate in another attack.

The situation came to light when the company on the receiving end contacted Federal Express that they had not gotten the full shipment. While these were low yield rods used to calibrate CT scan machines, these types of materials could become the fuel needed by terrorists to pack a "dirty bomb" that could spread serious amounts of radioactivity if detonated.

So the question is if it is time to tightly control shipments of any radioactive materials, even those used in medical applications? Shipments of hazardous materials are strictly controlled - - Regardless of existing provisions, radioactive materials for medical applications should be placed under tighter and more strict controls. Frankly, the shippers like Fed Ex need to be held accountable and ensure greater vigilance over any shipments like the one in question here.

The point of this is not that Wiki leaked, but that Calderon is making it clear that Mexico see Venezulean influence as a contributor to regional imbalance. They are concerned about losing parts of Mexico to the cartels. The implication is that Chavez has a hand in what is happening in Mexico..."Dontcha think" that has to include arms (that do not come from the U.S. side of the border).

This is unfolding.