[Conservative Intelligence Report]

Watch "33 Minutes" online....

2011-05-21T13:16:00.002-05:00

20100911

2010-09-11T10:50:00.001-05:00

That morning was an emotional morning for so many and on so many levels. For it was not just one family or town impacted, it was our Nation. The United States of America was under attack.

It was at this time that we needed a strong leader, and we had one...

Where would our country go? No one could or can answer that. The only thing we can be certain to do...

God Bless America and all those who serve in her defense.

Sergeant of the Guard's last walk

2010-06-30T13:37:00.003-05:00

Sgt. 1st Class Alfred Lanier, Sergeant of the Guard, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, lays a rose at the Tomb in remembrance of his final walk on June 25. Sentinels lay roses signifying leaving the Tomb, and the love they have for the job and the Unknowns.

Sergeant of the Guard's last walk (DoD Slideshow)

This world (and beyond) is just no fun!

2010-06-28T08:29:00.003-05:00

Commanders do not allow sexual intercourse on the International Space Station, it has been disclosed.

I wasted all these years trying to get in to NASA, now the only reason that I was doing it... gone! Damn. Although I do have a theory:

"We are a group of professionals," said Alan Poindexter, a NASA commander, during a visit to Tokyo, when asked about the consequences if astronauts boldly went where no others have been.

Maybe with that last name he wasn't getting any, and bitter he made up this rule. Just a thought.

Petraeus May Need a New Team in Afghanistan, Senators Say

2010-06-27T12:56:00.002-05:00

Two influential senators suggested Sunday that President Obama clean house on the civilian side of his Afghanistan war team if Gen. David Petraeus cannot get along with the same diplomats who may have sparred with outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal. (Continue reading...)

Stay tuned...

2010-06-24T13:20:00.000-05:00

Making a come back in the near future. Stay tuned...

9/11

2009-09-11T09:27:00.000-05:00

That morning was an emotional morning for so many and on so many levels. For it was not just one family or town impacted, it was our Nation. The United States of America was under attack.

It was at this time that we needed a strong leader, and we had one...

Where would our country go? No one could or can answer that. The only thing we can be certain to do...

I hope you decide to listen to my 9/11 BTR show. Thank you, God Bless America and all those who serve in her defense.

White House wants to cyber stalk you.

2009-08-09T09:25:00.002-05:00

We all know how the Obama Administration is trying to get Americans to turn on one another and snitch...directly to the White House. But I suppose they don't trust America to turn on itself because they seem to be ready to switch from passive radar to active radar:

A policy change under review by the White House would allow the federal government to begin tracking Internet traffic on its Web sites.

Since 2000, government Web sites have been banned from using cookies, which are identifying codes collected when a computer visits a Web site. When the computer returns, the Web site remembers the previous visits. The ban was enacted as a privacy protection. Since then, using cookies has become more common, and two weeks ago the White House announced plans to overturn the policy.

White House to Open Gate on Tracking Web Browsing

...all the way back in January that YouTube videos embedded on the redesigned White House Web site had been using the video-sharing site's tracking cookies.

Best Red Eye Interview!

2009-08-08T09:31:00.000-05:00

MAF Troopathon

2009-06-25T21:18:00.001-05:00

Please join me and donate:
TROOPATHON.ORG

I take issue.... (language warning)

2009-06-10T08:12:00.003-05:00

GET YOUR FUCKING SHOES OFF THE TAXPAYERS DESK!

What next Hussein? You going to lay the US Flag on the ground to make sure the soles of your shoes don't get dirty?

IN-fucking-CREDIBLE.

What Scoop Jackson knew...

2009-06-08T17:24:00.002-05:00

Missile Defense
33 Minutes

By: James Carafano
Examiner Columnist

There may never be another Scoop. Once upon a time Washington had many leaders who put national security before their politics. Henry “Scoop” Jackson stood at the top of the class.

Serving in the Senate from 1953 to his death 30 years later, no one worked harder than the Democrat from Washington State to provide for the common defense. “His core convictions about foreign policy and national security affairs derived largely from the lessons of World War II,” wrote biographer Robert G. Kaufman, “the folly of isolationism and appeasement, the importance of democracies remaining militarily strong and standing against totalitarianism, and the need for the United States to accept and sustain its pivotal role as a world power.”

These convictions often brought Jackson into conflict with other leaders of his own party. He bucked President Johnson, for example, to become one of the earliest congressional advocates of building missile defenses.

Continue reading the entire piece...

June 6th -- 1944, 1984, 2009

2009-06-06T06:12:00.002-05:00

D-Day

2009-06-05T18:13:00.002-05:00

Klingner on DPRK

2009-05-30T09:57:00.003-05:00

GTMO, detainees, terrorists, and Geneva

2009-05-27T07:34:00.003-05:00

One of the best and most comprehensive pieces I have read on GTMO and detainees. It is such a must read I had to post the entire thing here. I encourage all to read it, especially those that claim to be legal scholars that have determined America is not good enough for them. Just saying. (And I CAN say it because HERE in AMERICA we have the 1st Amendment which provides for freedom of speech.)

Exclusive: On ‘Torture’ and the Geneva Conventions – A Match Made in Ignorance

Tom Ordeman, Jr.

Last week, President Obama and former Vice President Cheney found themselves in a sort of unannounced, televised pseudo-debate on the topic of Guantanamo Bay, interrogation and detention, and their combined impact on national security. This follows the Democrat-controlled Senate's rejection of (and refusal to fund) the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility – a major setback, given that the announcement of the camp's closure was President Obama's first official act upon taking office. Given that many of the major talking points on both sides of the fence revolve around the "Geneva Convention," a bit of perspective on its relationship with the Gitmo detention facility would be a welcome change.

Few are aware that there are actually four Geneva Conventions – and in fact, any referral to "Geneva Convention" in the singular form is likely to be an inadvertent admission that the speaker is not actually very familiar with the Conventions, or their history or background. The four Conventions cover the following topics: the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in the Armed Forces in the Field (Convention I); the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (Convention II); the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Convention III); and the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Convention IV). Their combined framework provides for the lawful conduct of armed conflicts between nations and subsidiary forces, and for the treatment of casualties and prisoners of war once they are removed from combat. A derivative of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions were drafted starting in the late 19th century, and their last major revisions (save for minor amendments) were completed in 1949. Unfortunately, few who demand a rigid application of the Geneva Conventions in the modern age are familiar with their requirements. Among its numerous requirements, the Third Geneva Convention dictates:

Uniforms of enemy armed forces captured by the Detaining Power should, if suitable for the climate, be made available to clothe prisoners of war. (Article 27)

Canteens shall be installed in all camps, where prisoners of war may procure foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use. The tariff shall never be in excess of local market prices. The profits made by camp canteens shall be used for the benefit of the prisoners; a special fund shall be created for this purpose. The prisoners' representative shall have the right to collaborate in the management of the canteen and of this fund. (Article 28)

Prisoners of war must be provided with mail service. Upon the outbreak of hostilities, and pending an arrangement on this matter with the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power may determine the maximum amount of money in cash or in any similar form, that prisoners may have in their possession. Any amount in excess, which was properly in their possession and which has been taken or withheld from them, shall be placed to their account, together with any monies deposited by them, and shall not be converted into any other currency without their consent. (Article 58)

The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power[.] (Article 60)

As little consensus as there may be between Americans on these issues, it seems reasonable to assume that most Americans would agree that the most dangerous al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in American custody should not be wandering around an open detention facility, wearing their native dress, buying tobacco and other creature comforts from a DoD-provided canteen, doing so with monthly pay allowances afforded them from Federal tax income, while sending and receiving mail that could easily be used to pass or receive coded intelligence. The vernacular of the Geneva Conventions, particularly with respect to the definition of a Prisoner of War, is also important. Just as the detaining power is obligated to make such provisions as have been noted above, those detained may only enjoy "Prisoner of War" status if they have met the following conditions, among others:

They must be members of either a national army, or of a militia or volunteer corps.
They must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
They must have a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
They must carry arms openly.
They must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

While Taliban personnel would arguably qualify under several of these conditions, al Qaeda terrorists essentially qualify under none of these. Many who argue for a strict implementation of the Geneva Conventions are ignorant of the aforementioned requirements for the detaining authority, and of these requirements for consideration as a legitimate combatant. Being ignorant of these things, most are also ignorant of the fact that one of the key motivations for the adoption of the Geneva Conventions was to discourage the type of irregular, stateless warfare practiced by the likes of al Qaeda and the Taliban. The international community adopted and refined the Geneva Conventions during the late 19th and early- to mid-20th centuries in order to confine nations to a previously agreed-upon system of warfare. By seeking to afford the same rights to both legitimate Prisoners of War and illegitimate combatants, those who advocate such policies are essentially undermining one of the very goals that spurred the drafting of the Conventions in the first place.

Another tidbit from the Third Geneva Convention that might serve to demonstrate its irrelevance to the situation at Guantanamo Bay: the aforementioned Article 60 dictates that sergeants and other non-commissioned officers in detention must receive the equivalent of 12 Swiss francs per month in pay. Given that most readers are unlikely to be immediately aware of current exchange rates, it should be noted that 12 Swiss francs currently garner a grand total of $11.06. The fact that the Geneva Conventions were even written at a time when the international currency was the Swiss franc betrays their age, and their philosophical distance from the state of modern politics and warfare.

And what of the actual conditions at the Gitmo detention facility? While few would condone any sort of irresponsible or inhumane treatment of detainees, it seems a bit ironic that Americans who, by and large, believe that American criminals are treated too well for infractions such as armed robbery, murder, and rape, would then be dissatisfied when individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah – men who confess openly to planning and facilitating the murders of literally thousands of innocent American civilians – are treated like the terrorists they are. Far from being the nightmare that many human rights campaigners make it out to be, Miss Universe was recently quoted as saying that her trip to Guantanamo Bay was both "fun" and "relaxing" (BBC, Fox). Several years ago, a group even published the Gitmo Cook Book, an indication that the food served to the detainees was more than fit for human consumption. No one would argue that the detention facility is the equivalent of a resort. Unfortunately, many seem to forget that a detention facility is not supposed to be a resort. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions themselves dictate no such thing, even for legitimate combatants, which the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not according to the conditions set forth in the very Conventions in question. A detention facility is meant to be a controlled, humane holding facility for hostile agents who carried arms against the detaining power, and the facility at Gitmo succeeds in fulfilling that requirement.

While Americans almost universally disapprove of torture, the majority of the debate during the course of the last several years – to include memoranda released recently by the Obama Administration – has focused on waterboarding. One must ask oneself an honest question: can something really be considered torture if Christopher Hitchens and Playboy's Mike Guy have volunteered to undergo the procedure? Given that these two, countless military professionals who have participated in the SERE course, and the terrorists themselves appear none the worse for wear, can this technique really be considered torture? The Geneva Conventions universally outlaw torture, and one of the topics covered in leadership and ethics courses required of prospective American military officers is the topic of torture, and its near-universal ineffectiveness in interrogations. Most would agree that this prohibition is a correct policy from both moral and practical standpoints. However, given the assertions of the efficacy of many aggressive interrogation techniques, it seems fair to acknowledge that there are a number of effective interrogation procedures that, while being harsh, do not cross the line into the realm of bona fide torture.

Nearly eight years after the establishment of the Gitmo detention facility, the question now exists of what to do with the remaining terrorists held there. Thus far, the track record for released detainees – those who were considered the least dangerous - is relatively poor. Below are just a few of the stories of detainees returning to the fight:

Guantanamo inmate 'Joins Taleban' (BBC, AP)
Yemen captures al Qaeda leader once held at Gitmo
Released detainees 'go back to terrorism'
Guantanamo ex-prisoner detained

Perhaps the most prominent story in recent memory is that of a Gitmo detainee who was released, only to become a Taliban operations chief (AP, Times). So, even if it were appropriate to take all cues from the Geneva Conventions in this case, how would they direct the powers that be? One example can be found in the remaining infrastructure of the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland, where more than a thousand Italian prisoners – who, one must keep in mind, complied with the aforementioned requirements to be recognized as legitimate prisoners of war – were detained until both England and Italy agreed that hostilities were over. Having been removed from the battlefields of North Africa, the prisoners were put to work building the Churchill Barriers that serve as causeways to this day, and restricted German submarines from attacking the British naval station at Scapa Flow during the course of the Second World War. As is the case at Gitmo, the Italians' religious sensibilities were respected by their British captors, and that respect survives today in the form of the Italian Chapel on the island of Lamb Holm. Furthermore, these Italian prisoners never received trials, military tribunal or otherwise, and upon their capture starting in 1942 the ultimate length of their detention was never established. This hardly serves as an example whereby prematurely releasing detainees was encouraged by a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.

One would expect that if an objective and neutral third party (perhaps a time-traveling Swiss non-commissioned officer carrying a total month's pay of total of 12 francs in his pocket) were to question President Obama, Osama bin Laden, and Mohammed Omar, one of the few talking points upon which the three men would agree would be that the war continues – hostilities have not ceased, bitter disagreements have not been resolved, and neither side has exhausted the other's will or ability to continue fighting. The dividend of this is that the release of at least most of those detainees who have already been set free is questionable, and the release of the remaining detainees (who can be considered, almost by default, to be the most dangerous among those detained) would be completely inappropriate under the present circumstances. Assuming widespread agreement that these remaining detainees ought to be detained for the time being, and conceding for the sake of discussion that Guantanamo Bay is not a convenient or desirable location in which to hold them, one must ask the natural question: is there any location that is better than Guantanamo Bay? Or, is it reasonable to acknowledge that, of all the possible locations for keeping the most dangerous terrorists in the world, Gitmo is probably the least bad place to keep them?

The Geneva Conventions are an admirable component of the legacy of a bygone age of warfare, during which time the face of combat was forever changed by such inventions as the Maxim Gun, mustard gas, the airplane... Indeed, the ratification of the final changes to the Geneva Conventions took place in 1949, just a few short years after the beginning of the Nuclear Age and the corresponding advent of the Cold War. These developments combined with the Geneva Conventions themselves to usher in the evolution of warfare that the world has witnessed during the course of the last century. Unfortunately, for all of the lives that the Geneva Conventions may have saved over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it is likely that the growth of non-state and sub-state belligerents is a direction consequence of their ratification and poor implementation.

For many reasons, the United States has a vested interest in maintaining moral superiority over those enemies who throw acid in the faces of girls for going to school, flog men for trimming their beards, or behead foreign aid workers for vaccinating children. The situation at Guantanamo Bay has been controversial from its very beginning, and may very well be as precarious and detrimental as many claim. However, many of those who use the phrase "Geneva Conventions" as a talking point do the United States and the Geneva Conventions themselves a disservice by proclaiming that the Conventions should be rigidly implemented for the benefit of the very terrorists whom the Conventions were enacted to eliminate. America should not torture. America should respect international laws. America should respect human rights. Perhaps – perhaps – America should even close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. However, America should also think twice before looking to the Geneva Conventions as a model for how to treat terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. is a technical writer for a major defense contractor in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.

The REAL terrorist recruitment tool, the American LEFT and PRESS!

2009-05-26T07:01:00.004-05:00

Guantanamo and the question of terrorist recruitment
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

In the next few days, you're going to see an increasingly intense debate on the question of whether the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is a major factor in terrorist recruitment. In that debate, you're going to hear a name you might not have heard, Matthew Alexander. And you're going to learn that what you've been told about Guantanamo and terrorist recruitment is not the whole story.

In his speech on Thursday, President Obama gave two reasons for his decision to shut down Guantanamo. The first was that it has lowered American standing in the world, and the second was that it is a recruitment tool for terrorists. "Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause," the president said. "Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained." While Obama certainly views America's standing in the world as important, it is the charge that Guantanamo is a terrorist recruitment tool that is the real foundation of the decision to shut the detention center down. Absent that allegation, it is unlikely that Guantanamo would be slated for closing.

This is the question I have been asking myself. My conclusion without any research needed is that terrorists will use anything and/or manufacture stories in order to make excuses and recruit.

OH YEAH, outside of preventing plots...since when do we trust a terrorists word?

But where does the charge come from? Much, although not all, of it comes from one person. On "Meet the Press" Sunday, when Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin was asked for evidence to support his claim that Guantanamo has been a terrorist-recruitment tool, Durbin answered: "Major Matthew Alexander, who interrogated the al-Qaeda suspects in Iraq. And it was his conclusion that half of them had been recruited and were fighting, trying to kill Americans because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." Alexander was the only authority Durbin cited.

In the Post op-ed, Alexander wrote, "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo…It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse."

So let me get this right we have got the Executive and Senators getting their intel from anonymous op-ed pieces? What the fuck is going on? Who next? Can I expect to see Speaker Pelosi on Meet the Press this weekend citing Seymour Hersh as clear evidence to make drastic changes to our National Security policy?

Alexander told me that when he interrogated foreigners who came to Iraq to fight Americans, the reason they most often gave for joining the battle was their outrage over abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Tales, and in the case of Abu Ghraib, photos from the two prisons deeply affected the fighters, Alexander explained. "Very high-ranking members of al Qaeda told me they didn't really believe in suicide bombing, but we left them with no choice," he said.

UMMM. "We left them no choice." WTF? That is about the most clear cut case of "blame America first" I have ever seen.

Of course, the most spectacular allegation of abuse of the Koran was a May 2005 story in Newsweek, which alleged that U.S. operatives had flushed a Koran down a toilet in Guantanamo as part of an effort to intimidate prisoners. The report was based on a single anonymous source, and Newsweek later retracted it and apologized. But the report was absolutely explosive, sparking riots around the world. It would be hard to deny that the Newsweek report had a more detrimental effect on Muslim opinion about Guantanamo than any inspector general's report.

So if Guantanamo must be closed because it is a symbol of America's abuse of Muslim detainees, and if the example of abuse in Guantanamo that most outraged Muslims worldwide was a story of alleged mistreatment of the Koran, and if that story was later retracted, then are we going through the enormous effort to close Guantanamo because of a bad story in Newsweek? The situation is more complicated than that, but the fact is, that's part of it.

While I did quote much of the article here, I did not quote all of it so please follow the link at the top to read the entire piece. In addition, a follow up piece by York:
The anonymous accuser of Guantanamo

MEMORIAL DAY Evening Post

2009-05-25T17:09:00.000-05:00

MEMORIAL DAY

2009-05-25T00:01:00.005-05:00

shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0">

This is by far one of the best pieces I have ever seen. I remember it to this day and was glad I was able to find it. This should remind all this day is not about "not going to work and just grilling some hamburgers."

Today we all have a job. We are not off! Today we must honor all those who died fighting on behalf of an ever grateful nation and her people. Today is the day to remind yourself that someones child, spouse, parent, friend, neighbor, AMERICAN gave all that a mortal can... but most important, the reason this day is so important is because they did not give all for themselves or for selfish reasons.

These heroes gave their lives for others and their country. It is our duty to remember them every day, but especially today. God bless and thank you to all those who gave their lives in defense of the United States of America.

President Barack Hussein Obama politicizes Memorial Day.

2009-05-23T09:47:00.002-05:00

He simply cannot help himself, shoving his policy matters in to every drop of refuse that spills form his moronic mouth. It makes me sick.

This Memorial Day weekend, Americans will gather on lawns and porches, fire up the grill, and enjoy the company of family, friends, and neighbors. But this is not only a time for celebration, it is also a time to reflect on what this holiday is all about; to pay tribute to our fallen heroes; and to remember the servicemen and women who cannot be with us this year because they are standing post far from home – in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

Well he tried. Memorial Day is about honoring those who “died in defense of their country.” EVERY day should be a day where we honor those serving currently, or who have served honorably. Memorial Day is a time to specifically honor those made the ultimate sacrifice.

Want to know what it is not a time for?

That is why we are building a 21st century Department of Veterans Affairs with the largest single-year funding increase in three decades. It’s a commitment that will help us provide our veterans with the support and benefits they have earned, and expand quality health care to a half million more veterans.

Can anyone out there explain to me how health care is going to help those currently at rest in Arlington and other cemeteries across the nation?

That can mean sending a letter or a care package to our troops overseas. It can mean volunteering at a clinic where a wounded warrior is being treated or bringing supplies to a homeless veterans center. Or it can mean something as simple as saying "thank you" to a veteran you pass on the street.

That is what Memorial Day is all about. It is about doing all we can to repay the debt we owe to those men and women who have answered our nation’s call by fighting under its flag.

NO IT IS NOT. IT IS ABOUT HONORING THOSE WHO DIED FIGHTING FOR THE COUNTRY. There is a reason there is Veterans Day and Memorial day. Thank you for f’ing up the meaning of the day. And thank you for placing political policy in your address that has nothing to do with the issue.

President Obama, you are a grade A asshole.

Flags In

2009-05-22T16:18:00.002-05:00

“FLAGS IN” COMMEMORATES THE FALLEN AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

Arlington National Cemetery will continue the time-honored tradition of “Flags In” on Thursday, May 21st.

Soldiers from the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) will be joined by service members from the U.S. Marine Corps Ceremonial and Guard Company, U.S. Navy Ceremonial Guard, U.S. Air Force Honor Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard Ceremonial Honor Guard in placing more than 250,000 grave decorating flags at Arlington National Cemetery.

“Flags In” has been conducted annually since the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) was designated as the Army’s official ceremonial unit in 1948. Flags are placed one foot in front and centered before each headstone in the cemetery.

Flags will also be placed at the Tomb of the Unknowns by the Tomb Sentinels and at the cemetery’s Columbarium. All flags will be removed on Tuesday, May 26th before the cemetery opens to the public.

Ingraham DESTROYS Obama's "National Security" speech.

2009-05-22T12:20:00.001-05:00

VPOTUS Cheney Schools potus

2009-05-21T11:17:00.002-05:00

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Former Vice President Cheney's speech at AEI.

Red Eye Host Greg Gutfeld on Media Bias, Liberal Intolerance...

2009-05-18T19:02:00.001-05:00

Creator of POW/MIA Flag pases away.

2009-05-17T09:24:00.001-05:00

Newt Heisley, the designer of the POW/MIA flag adopted by Congress in 1990 as a symbol of the nation's concern for those missing during military actions in Southeast Asia, died. He was 88.

Donna Allison, Heisley's fiancee, told The Associated Press Heisley died suddenly Thursday at his home after years of failing health. His death was first reported by The Gazette.

Heisley's image sketched in pencil in 1971 during the Vietnam War shows the silhouette of a gaunt man, a strand of barbed wire and a watchtower in the background with the words POW/MIA "You are not forgotten."

Congress in 1998 mandated the flag be displayed at the White House, U.S. Capitol, military installations and other federal buildings on national observances that include Memorial Day and Fourth of July.

Political left, deaf on National Security

2009-05-16T08:19:00.001-05:00

Public, Political Left At Odds Over Interrogation
May 16, 2009

American voters believe harsh interrogations of high-value al-Qaeda detainees were justified by a 19-point margin in the most recent survey conducted by Resurgent Republic. The 53 to 34 percent margin is almost identical to a recent Gallup Poll that found 55 percent of Americans believed harsh interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects were justified.

Matthews BLOWS. A WTF moment.

2009-05-14T08:51:00.003-05:00

Don't you love the righteous indignation, the tough stance on principle that Matthews takes. He is against it, damn the country to hell it is more important to make the terrorists comfy. At the same time, kudos to Harold Ford Jr. for actually putting the entire debate in to the proper god damn fucking context. We need morfe democrats like him.

But wait a moment...he is against when it was determined to be legal, but he finds it ok if it is illegal. WTF?!?!?!

This is the final proof, like it was needed, that Chris Matthews is a moronic partisan that is more than willing to put his personal feelings ahead of the safety of the country... that means he doesn't care if you or I die.

Murtha. UGH

2009-05-13T17:57:00.002-05:00

The Republican who challenged Rep. John Murtha in 2008 says a top aide to the embattled Pennsylvania Democrat threatened to have him recalled to active duty in the U.S. Army so he could be court-martialed for engaging in politics while serving in the armed forces.

Bill Russell — who challenged Murtha in 2008 and intends to do so again in 2010 — said Murtha chief of staff John Hugya made the threat during a National Rifle Association event in mid-March.

Ret. Col. Gregory Ritch, a former Army Reserve officer who served as Russell’s commanding officer, said he heard Hugya make a similar threat in January.

“[Hugya] said, ‘When the [new] secretary of the Army comes in, we’re going to call his ass back to active duty and we’re going to prosecute him under the [Uniform Code of Military Justice],’” Ritch said Hugya told him during their January conversation.

His staff better watch out the can of worms they are opening. I will just point out a simple fact. They want to nail this man for serving and running? Murtha retired from the Marines in 1990. He was elected to the house in 1990. Do the math, I am seeing an overlap of military service and periods where he would have been campaigning.

Ok for him, but not Russell.

Piece of the week.: Andrew C. McCarthy

2009-05-13T05:29:00.001-05:00

Poison Photo-Drop
President Obama’s decision to release photographs of prisoner abuse will imperil our nation and its defenders.

American soldiers, American civilians, and other innocent people are going to die because Pres. Barack Obama wants to release photographs of prisoner abuse. Note: I said, “wants to release” — not “has to release,” or “is being forced to release,” or “will comply with court orders by releasing.” The photos, quite likely thousands of them, will be released because the president wants them released. Any other description of the situation is a dodge.

If President Obama wanted to refrain from releasing these photos in order to protect the military forces he commands or promote the security of Americans — his two highest obligations as president — he could do so by simply issuing an executive order. The applicable statute expressly allows for it, just as it provides for Congress — now in the firm control of the president and his party — to withhold the photos from disclosure. Instead, Obama and congressional Democrats are choosing to release the photos.

They are making that choice fully aware that it will cost lives. It is a sedulous Democrat talking-point, repeated most recently by Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Services chairman and a key Obama ally, that the revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib inspired new terrorist recruits, caused American combat casualties, and made the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attack. This has long been Obama’s own position. It is a charge he made throughout the 2008 campaign, and it is one he repeated just a month ago in his Strasbourg speech: “When we saw what happened in Abu Ghraib, that wasn’t good for our security — that was a recruitment tool for terrorism. Humiliating people is never a good strategy to battle terrorism.”

This is a must read! Please continue reading over at NRO: Poison Photo-Drop

Obama politicizing National Security

2009-05-10T09:52:00.002-05:00

Government officials familiar with the CIA's early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the "top secret" May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month's release of the Justice Department's interrogation memos.

So this administration wants to rail on everything that kept us safe for the past eight years. And now the Obama Administration is fully willing to politicize intelligence. Not this "declassification" was being talked about to "political allies" not say all members of Congress. And note they are holding off until things calm down. That way once we are starting to rebound from his most recent screw ups, and maybe the flames will die a bit Obama will come along and dump this JP5 on the world stage to light the world and country ablaze.

Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that "it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks," according to the Justice Department's declassified summary of it. The threat of such an imminent attack was cited by the department as an element in its 2002 and later written authorization for using harsh techniques.

Ahh yes, just release the ones that makes people look bad (Note I say "look"). Hide the truth from the public. Look I don't care, would have preferred, if all of it stayed classified. But if you are going to use some of it to attack your political adversaries, let's also know all the death, destruction, and horror that was prevented. NOT BY YOU, but by people ACTUALLY willing to "provide for the common defense" of our country.

This Administration IS making our country and the world less safe. He is providing fuel to the fire. They claim that GTMO recruits terrorists. What do you think causes more?

1) People making up what they want about what goes on in GTMO to recruit? (They will just find something else the "evil west" does to replace GTMO should it close.)

2) Releasing classified information to our enemies that only show what APPEARS to be bad, but then not telling the world all the hell that was planned and prevented by the assholes that this Administration is now aiding. Kudos to the fucking President of ANYTHING BUT the United States of America.

GTMO WORKS, lefties get over it!

2009-05-09T12:21:00.001-05:00

High Value Terrorist Program (PDF)

What does a bell, water, and death have in common.

2009-05-08T09:59:00.002-05:00

The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The "183 times" was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.
...

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

Watch the video, and as you hear that bell ring (1 more than 183, mind you) imagine water flowing up your nose for a moment. That is what the left wants you to believe is torture. But then think about the fact that that bell ringing is a life GONE. It is not a simulated drowning, it is an actual death.

That is just the Pentagon, not Pennsylvania or the WTC. More people died at the Pentagon alone than KSM was water boarded. But hey, Obama is a nice guy and now al Qaeda will like us more. We can all hold hands and skip down the path of life together in harmony.

BULLSHIT! YOU ILL-INFORMED MORONS LACKING ANY GOD DAMN SENSE BETWEEN YOUR EARS.

Pelosi: What and when. Oh snap!

2009-05-08T08:21:00.003-05:00

Click the above image to see the full size, note the official document uses the past tense "had been employed." See the full document of who was briefed, and when: HERE (h/t Mike's America)

The Detainees -- 9/11

2009-05-07T20:35:00.002-05:00

Grab the closest liberals hair and hold their face up to the screen, at the end ask them: "how does it?"

gop.gov/detainees

Support for "torture" grows on both sides of the aisle.

2009-05-07T10:00:00.002-05:00

Even when called "torture," the support for enhanced interrogations GROWS. Click for a link to Rove's site where the poll is.

Carafano on Free Speech

2009-05-06T16:50:00.002-05:00

Free speech in defense of liberty is no vice

History often books a room at Washington, D.C.’s Mayflower Hotel. It was there that Franklin Roosevelt penned “nothing to fear but fear itself” for his first inaugural address. Harry Truman lived there for most of his first 100 days as president.

Last summer, after ending her run for the White House, Hillary Clinton booked the Mayflower to introduce some 300 of her top donors to Barack Obama.

Last week, the venerable hotel may have hosted some history again.

More than a dozen top talk radio hosts and producers gathered there to discuss what to do about various plans emanating from Washington. Plans to throttle talk radio.

The talkers are worried. And they should be. What’s at stake is not just their livelihoods, but the weapon most vital to our national security: Free speech.

CONTINUE READING HERE AND LEAVE A COMMENT THERE!!!!

Obama, an enemy of the state?

2009-04-30T19:13:00.000-05:00

WAS THE NYC FLYOVER RACIALLY MOTIVATED?

2009-04-30T09:14:00.002-05:00

Did the White House want to honor Obama as the first black President by using the honorable service of the Tuskegee Airmen and their "Red Tails" flying "next to the President" over the Statue of Liberty?

Air Force Officials have apparently confirmed that the F-16's came from the Alabama ANG not the DC ANG.

Will we ever find out? Probably not. Am I walking down conspiracy theory road, a little bit. But I have no doubt that this president would be more than willing to use and abuse our military to advance himself.

If it was a legit honoring of the service GOOD, and NYC should be willing to honor along with the rest of us (take a breath, it was not 9/11). But I am seriously concerned that this White House will politicize the military more than any other in history. This does not bode well for the military, hence our national security, hence OBAMA IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO AMERICA.

SPECTER : Because........

2009-04-29T14:26:00.002-05:00

History on Obama's 100th day.

2009-04-29T11:11:00.004-05:00

Today marks the day where the United States evacuated Saigon. That destruction of moral to our country continues for some to this day. The North Vietnamese took over. But days earlier we left Cambodia, offering the Prince safety... his brave and patriotic response was as follows:

Dear Excellency and Friend,

I thank you very sincerely for your letter and your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people, which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad, because we are all born and must die one day. I have committed this mistake of believing in you, the Americans. Please accept, Excellency, my dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.
-Prince Sirik Matak

On this 100th day of Obama's Presidency I reference back to running from Saigon. Will he stand tall with a backbone and protect our national interests, or will he side with "the world." Destroying America as we know it?

I have a sickening feeling that around the world those under the thumbs of tyrants in Venezuela, DPRK, Iran, and others will watch this President cuddle up with the men that destroy lives and oppress and will be thinking, feeling, and voicing:

I have committed this mistake of believing in you, the Americans.

Under President Obama we don't just have people around the world... we have Americans losing faith in America because of the radical changes Obama and the Democrats want to force upon us. Socialism applied by a talking head that (I have finally determined, once and for all) is mentally and physically incapable of speaking without a teleprompter.

I have committed the mistake of believing patriotism would always shine in the Office of the President, Mr. Obama.
-md

Get rid of the USAF, retort.

2009-04-28T07:53:00.004-05:00

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ recent budget proposals have sparked a national conversation about where and how to strike a balance between the twin imperatives of fiscal responsibility and national security. A recent contribution to that conversation is troubling, however. Paul Kane’s New York Times Op-Ed (“Up, Up and Out,” April 21, 2009) argues for eliminating the Air Force as an independent service because it “is simply not structured to be in the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Today’s Air Force: More Than Just Bombs on Target

Colonel Peter W. Huggins, USAF, Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Air University, Maxwell AFB, AL.

Today’s counterinsurgency and stability operations are ground centric. These struggles are inherently political and are being fought person by person, street by street, town by town. Our nation’s ground forces, along with those of our allies, bear the weight of this effort and deserve the nation’s gratitude. Air power and the United States Air Force, however, are making significant contributions to this struggle, enabling the success of our troops on the ground. Most of this effort occurs beyond the direct combat capabilities supporting Soldiers and Marines on a daily basis.

For the sake of argument, though, let us briefly consider Mr. Kane’s solution of eliminating the Air Force. It invites a long list of questions. Here are just four of them:

Finish reading the piece here that provides reasons that Paul Kane is a moron. A piece recommended for Media Lizzy as well who once said of the USAF that they just "drop bombs from 50,000 feet."

**Slight editorial note from my part. Those Navy SeALs that took out the pirates, how do you think they got from stateside to the other side of the world so quick? Did they set sail on a destroyer? No, the jumped from a USAF C-17.**

Erik Kristensen Eye Street Klassic

2009-04-27T12:27:00.001-05:00

The Erik Kristensen Eye Street Klassic celebrates the life and accomplishments of LCDR Erik Kristensen, SEAL Team 10, who courageously gave his life for his teammates and country while serving in Afghanistan. The Klassic will raise funds to strengthen Erik's scholarship fund at his alma mater, Gonzaga College High School, in Washington, DC.

GENEVA

2009-04-26T19:33:00.004-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

At 7 minutes Norah goes in to Geneva (which does not apply because they do not follow the laws of war), and how the world hates us because of interrogations. Liz makes the wonderful point of how "they" treat our men and women, and how it is childish to think that will change.

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now. -Porter Goss

The Clear and Present Danger to our Country

2009-04-24T15:15:00.002-05:00

A previous "sticker" from during the campaign...

Congress Knew About the Interrogations

2009-04-23T12:12:00.000-05:00

Obama should release the memo on the attacks prevented.

By PETER HOEKSTRA

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair got it right last week when he noted how easy it is to condemn the enhanced interrogation program "on a bright sunny day in April 2009." Reactions to this former CIA program, which was used against senior al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003, are demonstrating how little President Barack Obama and some Democratic members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation.

George Tenet, who served as CIA director under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, believes the enhanced interrogations program saved lives. He told CBS's "60 Minutes" in April 2007: "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

Last week, Mr. Blair made a similar statement in an internal memo to his staff when he wrote that "[h]igh value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country."

Yet last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Last week, Mr. Obama argued that those who implemented this program should not be prosecuted -- even though the release of the memos still places many individuals at other forms of unfair legal risk. It appeared that Mr. Obama understood it would be unfair to prosecute U.S. government employees for carrying out a policy that had been fully vetted and approved by the executive branch and Congress. The president explained this decision with these gracious words: "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." I agreed.

Unfortunately, on April 21, Mr. Obama backtracked and opened the door to possible prosecution of Justice Department attorneys who provided legal advice with respect to the enhanced interrogations program. The president also signaled that he may support some kind of independent inquiry into the program. It seems that he has capitulated to left-wing groups and some in Congress who are demanding show trials over this program.

Members of Congress calling for an investigation of the enhanced interrogation program should remember that such an investigation can't be a selective review of information, or solely focus on the lawyers who wrote the memos, or the low-level employees who carried out this program. I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques.

Any investigation must include this information as part of a review of those in Congress and the Bush administration who reviewed and supported this program. To get a complete picture of the enhanced interrogation program, a fair investigation will also require that the Obama administration release the memos requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney on the successes of this program.

An honest and thorough review of the enhanced interrogation program must also assess the likely damage done to U.S. national security by Mr. Obama's decision to release the memos over the objections of Mr. Panetta and four of his predecessors. Such a review should assess what this decision communicated to our enemies, and also whether it will discourage intelligence professionals from offering their frank opinions in sensitive counterterrorist cases for fear that they will be prosecuted by a future administration.

Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other antiterrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.

Mr. Hoekstra, a congressman from Michigan, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Feel Safe?

2009-04-22T13:39:00.002-05:00

Thank goodness the United States Government is focused on the main thing it is tasked in doing: "PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE."

Obama's Comedy tour...funny stuff!

2009-04-22T09:41:00.003-05:00

I just finished watching President Obama speaking at the CIA yesterday, for the 3rd or 4th time. I am stunned that Director Panetta and the President would be cracking jokes in front of a MEMORIAL!!! What is wrong with these people. That is why I wanted to watch it again and again, to make sure my eyes were not BS'ing me.

I have obtained the classified schedule of Mr. Obama's upcoming Comedy tour, get your tickets now. Here is the schedule of locations that you will find here and only here:

April 20th, 2009 -- SOLD OUT

September 11th, 2009

November 1st, 2009

November 11th, 2009

December 7th, 2009

Get your tickets now! The kids will love the gifts from the gift shop. The President will be bringing laughter and disrespect to all the right places!

Why Obama could never be a Marine.

2009-04-22T08:59:00.002-05:00

I have tried to give him a chance, I may be being unfair...but I cannot deal with his bullshit and endangering of National Security, wish-washy stances on basically everything anymore.

On Interrogation Policies, Another Delicate Compromise From Obama

Yesterday, Obama attempted his latest high-wire act. The Justice Department released memos detailing brutal interrogation methods used by the CIA, even as Obama said that the CIA operatives who used the methods would not face prosecution. The release comes after a heated internal debate at the White House, and the morning after, it appears that no one is completely happy with the compromise.

President Obama, go back to YOUR community and get the FUCK OUT OF MINE.

OHHHHHH-bama

2009-04-22T08:35:00.003-05:00

But don't fret, the stimulus has done the job:

In its fourth-quarter report, Caterpillar said the worst has yet to pass, saying 2009 looks to be the weakest year for economic growth in the postwar period.

Earlier this year, Caterpillar announced the gradual elimination of 22,000 jobs worldwide in an attempt to grapple with the drop in new orders.

But don't worry, President Obama only mis-understands statements once in a blue moon; and usually not on things of any importance:

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro said President Obama misinterpreted remarks by his brother and successor, Raul, and bristled at the suggestion that the island should free political prisoners or cut taxes on remittances from abroad as a goodwill gesture to the U.S.

Raul Castro touched off a whirlwind of speculation last week that the U.S. and Cuba could be headed toward a thaw in nearly a half-century of chilly relations. The speculation began when the Cuban president said leaders would be willing to sit down with their U.S. counterparts and discuss everything, including human rights, freedom of the press and expression, and political prisoners on the island.

Obama responded at the Summit of the Americas by saying Washington seeks a new beginning with Cuba, but he also said Sunday that Cuba should release some political prisoners and reduce official taxes on remittances sent to the island from the U.S.

That appeared to enrage Fidel Castro, 82, who wrote in an essay posted on a government website that Obama "without a doubt misinterpreted Raul's declarations."

The former president appeared to be throwing cold water on expectations for improved bilateral relations -- suggesting that Obama had no right to urge Cuba to make even small concessions. He also seemed to suggest too much was being made of Raul's comments about discussing everything with U.S. authorities.

OOPS!

[UPDATE:]

Let them know how well it is working!!!!! They asked, we should reply.

Pony up Obama!!!!

2009-04-21T09:02:00.003-05:00

You want a transparent administration? You already put the first part out to SMEAR the Bush Administration, the CIA, and America itself. Why don't you pony up and put out what it prevented?

Great piece on this issue at Politico.com.

Make what you will, will makers...

2009-04-18T06:36:00.006-05:00

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before, although tonight I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.
...
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.

Senator Barrack Obama

July 24th, 2008

I believe that a man must be a good patriot before he can be, and as the only possible way of being, a good citizen of the world. Experience teaches us that the average man who protests that his international feeling swamps his national feeling, that he does not care for his country because he cares so much for mankind, in actual practice proves himself the foe of mankind; that the man who says that he does not care to be a citizen of any one country, because he is the citizen of the world, is in fact usually and exceedingly undesirable citizen of whatever corner of the world he happens at the moment to be in. In the dim future all moral needs and moral standards may change; but at present, if a man can view his own country and all others countries from the same level with tepid indifference, it is wise to distrust him, just as it is wise to distrust the man who can take the same dispassionate view of his wife and mother. However broad and deep a man's sympathies, however intense his activities, he need have no fear that they will be cramped by love of his native land.

President Theodore Roosevelt

April 23rd, 1910

Happy Easter!!!

2009-04-11T20:02:00.001-05:00

USSR is right on principle.*

2009-04-11T06:32:00.003-05:00

Now while we must be careful, because this theory didn't work out well for them about 2 decades ago...

"Test launches of new missiles have become routine in recent years, and the Kremlin says the financial crisis will not discourage it from spending as much money as needed on defense. The Topol, which entered service in 1985, was last test-fired last October."

We could be making the necessary moves in defense to make it the best force possible. But to hear our Government very publicly use the economy as a reason to skirt their main duty "provide for the common defense" is pathetic and cowardly.

Guess what, that "military industrial complex" that the left fumes over. It provides security. It provides jobs!
* Never thought you would hear me utter that phrase did you?

Congressional Black Caucus: "Useful Idiots."

2009-04-09T12:20:00.003-05:00

Congressional Black Caucus

Whoa there, don't send the hate mail to me!

The term is commonly attributed to Vladimir Lenin, sometimes in the form "useful idiots of the West", to describe those Western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West.

Congressional Black Caucus Smitten With Castro:

"The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent... We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the Cuban revolution. By which I mean: NOTHING!"
- (Ernesto "Che" Guevara.)

Public access for hero arrival...

2009-04-07T08:56:00.002-05:00

I am not going to post the video or photos of the event at Dover, AFB. I do not like the reversal of the policy banning the media at the arrival of fallen heroes being returned to the homeland. However, I do respect the wishes of the family that approved the media access.

My two cents — changing this policy is a good idea, if only because it gives the public (through the lens of an eager media) to see the seriousness with which the military honors it’s fallen heroes. The Washington Post did an excellent job capturing the scene in it’s coverage today.

There are people on all sides with differing views, like the one above of Pete Hegseth (the chairman of Vets for Freedom). I don't agree with that idea for the simple fact that I do not believe the media is there to honor. My evidence, why does the media not cover the hundreds of returning heroes... why is the media thin at the following events:

Yet they are furious at not being allowed to photograph coffins? My reply is not they want to honor the heroes, they want political statements. In addition I cannot feel that the piece mentioned in the WaPo is all that respectful when they say things like:

Old Guard members also are assigned the funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. To make it into the Old Guard, they've already survived a sort of basic training in which, instead of climbing walls and crawling under barbed wire, they learn to stand as still as a marble column and as stolidly as a beefeater.

They are soldiers first and did not complete "a sort of basic training," they completed the same training to serve honorably in the United States Army as all the other men and women.

When I see the same amount of coverage done for every single homecoming, causality or not, then I will believe the media has honor and best interest in mind.

SECDEF Gates drops the axes... (UPDATED)

2009-04-06T14:03:00.005-05:00

Today SECDEF Gates held his conference with General Cartwright on what was going to live and die in the DoDs future.

I am happy that it seems that missile defense is not going to be ignored. But some of the promising future is no more.

To better protect our forces and those of our allies in theater from ballistic missile attack, we will add $700 million to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems, specifically the terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) programs.

We will also add $200 million to fund conversion of six additional Aegis ships to provide ballistic missile defense capabilities.

In the area of missile defense:
• We will restructure the program to focus on the rogue state and theater missile threat.
• We will not increase the number of current ground-based interceptors in Alaska as had been planned. But we will continue to robustly fund continued research and development to improve the capability we already have to defend against long-range rogue missile threats – a threat North Korea’s missile launch this past weekend reminds us is real.

• We will cancel the second airborne laser (ABL) prototype aircraft. We will keep the existing aircraft and shift the program to an R&D effort. The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems and the program’s proposed operational role is highly questionable.
• We will terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program because of its significant technical challenges and the need to take a fresh look at the requirement.
• Overall, the Missile Defense Agency program will be reduced by $1.4 billion.

"Because of its significant technical challenges"?

Are you serious. The plane, happened overnight. Missiles overnight. Aircraft carrier overnight. Everything was so easy. I must say it seems as though Gates has fallen in lockstep with POTUS.

We no longer live by Kennedy logic "we choose not to do these things because they are easy, but because they are hard." We live by Obama logic "if it is hard we don't bother with it, because gosh darn it people like me."

The evasive measures were of no effect and due to this decision we will not have the aircraft and many good people will be losing their jobs. Close to 100,000.

We will end production of the F-22 fighter at 187 – representing 183 planes plus four recommended for inclusion in the FY 2009 supplemental.

[UPDATE:]

[UPDATE:]
In the Hill:

“Cooperation on missile defense is now a critical component of many of our closest security partnerships around the world,” Lieberman wrote in a letter to the president. “We fear that cuts to the budget for missile defense could inadvertently undermine these relationships and foster the impression that the United States is an unreliable ally.

“Moreover, sharp cuts would leave us and our friends around the world less capable of responding to the growing ballistic missile threat.”

Lieberman, a longtime supporter of a robust missile defense program, is the lead signatory on the letter.

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) and four Republicans, Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and James Inhofe (Okla.), also signed it. (An important battery of interceptor missiles is based in Fort Greely, Alaska.)

Krauthammer, on the ball re: DPRK, Obama, the UN

2009-04-06T13:04:00.001-05:00

Congratulations to Charles Krauthammer!

2009-04-03T11:43:00.002-05:00

Charles Krauthammer Wins Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and FOX News commentator Charles Krauthammer has won the 11th annual Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism.

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer has won the 11th annual Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism.

Krauthammer -- a regular panelist on FOX News' "Special Report" whose weekly column in The Washington Post is syndicated in more than 200 newspapers worldwide -- won the $20,000 award for depicting "love of country and its democratic institutions," the Eric Breindel Foundation announced Thursday.

"I was surprised and extremely gratified," Krauthammer told FOXNews.com. "I was very happy when I got the call. It means a lot because I knew Eric, he was a friend of mine and he was a courageous journalist. To win an award in honor of him is extremely gratifying."

Missile defense, DPRK, "Change."

2009-04-02T18:46:00.003-05:00

DPRK threatens to blow our aircraft out of the sky, while our DoD is saying we will not take out their missiles, and other top brass saying that missile defense is basically outdated, "as passe as email."

The bottom line? It's an "I will not be ignored" moment: The Dear Leader is sending a shot across the bow of the Obama administration, which had blamed testy US ties with North Korea on bad Bush-era policies.

Indeed, the administration seems to be downplaying the upcoming missile shot as a done deal, threatening unspecified "consequences" for naughty North Korean behavior. It hasn't even indicated that it would put US missile defenses in Alaska and California on operational alert in advance of a launch (as George W. Bush did in 2006).

Team Obama's response is so restrained, in fact, it signals resignation and weakness in the eyes of some.

One thing's absolutely clear: Obama's notion that the world's troublemakers would naturally "change" course once he took office continues to crumble. North Korea is just the latest example.

NORTH KOREA GOING BALLISTIC, Peter Brookes

Missile defense, now is the time!

2009-03-30T15:57:00.003-05:00

WMD and ballistic missile proliferation trends make the case for a missile shield.
by Peter Brookes

Just 10 years ago, there were only six nuclear weapons states. Today, there are nine—with another country knocking on the door of the once-exclusive atomsplitting
club.

Twenty-five years ago, nine countrieshad ballistic missiles. Today there are nearly 30—not to mention that ballistic missile testing hit record post-Cold War highs just last year.

Clearly, the ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation trend isn’t positive. Despite this, a missile defense system that would protect the homeland, American troops overseas, allies and friends remains a controversial idea in some corners of American thought.

While the George W. Bush administration took significant steps to develop sea- and land-based missile defense systems to thwart the growing threat, development of the missile shield is far from complete. Considering just Iran’s nuclear efforts, North Korea’s assistance to Syria, and robust Russian and Chinese arsenals, it’s imperative
that the White House and Congress support missile defense programs to close a gaping hole in our national security.

Read the entire 6 page piece here in PDF form.

Military does a good job, gets slapped.

2009-03-28T09:18:00.003-05:00

Here it all goes again. I cannot stand the people that feel the military can act with judgment and humanity everywhere in the world... EXCEPT here on our own shores. I ask a serious question: How is feeling that the military is unable to act with restraint here in the US any different than just calling them all "cold blooded killers"?

Soldiers’ help reviewed after Ala. shootings

Law restricts military from helping civilian authorities
By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Mar 28, 2009 9:00:41 EDT

The deployment of 22 active-duty military police and the provost marshal from Fort Rucker, Ala., to the scene of a civilian killing spree 25 miles from post may have violated federal law.

But the deployment may also have been within the legal parameters of how the military is permitted to assist civilian authorities in cases of emergencies.

That’s what an ongoing Army investigation hopes to unravel.

Ten people died in the March 10 rampage in southeastern Alabama by a man police identified as Michael McClendon, 28, of Kinston, Ala., where the first killing took place around 3:30 p.m. The shooter took his own life less than an hour later after an exchange of gunfire with police.

Geneva County Sheriff Greg Ward at first did not respond to an offer of help from an unidentified lieutenant colonel at Fort Rucker who said he could provide generators, lights and other equipment. But with seven separate crime scenes spanning a 20-mile area and a 12-man force that was exhausted and overwhelmed, he called back later and requested the MPs.

“The lieutenant colonel called our [911] dispatch to say ‘we’re here if you need us,’” Ward told Army Times in a phone interview. “I thought, let me call them back. So I asked for MPs to come in and relieve our personnel long enough so they could get something to eat,” Ward said, explaining that most of his men and about 10 police officers from Samson and Kinston had been on the job since 7 a.m.

The soldiers, he said, were in Samson for about three hours and were assigned to direct traffic flow at five intersections. Some helped keep sightseers away from the worst crime scene, where six of the victims’ bodies lay on a porch, including an 18-month-old baby.

...

The deployment of nonmedical, active-duty troops in response to a local emergency could be a violation of federal law if the soldiers engaged in law enforcement activities.

The Posse Comitatus Act, and its many exceptions, mostly restricts the military and units of the National Guard under Title 10 authority from acting in a law enforcement role within the U.S.

...

Ward praised the MPs.

“That lieutenant colonel was not out of place. He called to say ‘we’re here if you need us,’ ” Ward said.

In my earlier piece "Repeal Posse Comitatus, or educate the public!" I spoke about the TRUE meaning of this act, and it's creation. White democrats trying to prevent freed slaves from voting. And to get this passed: they said approve it or we won't fund the Army. Dems never change.

...it has been said that only Congress can “ok” the use of the military on domestic soil. However, if you read the act it says “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” I stress the word “OR.” That word was obviously used to encourage the approval of Congress BUT it was not to limit and take away the powers of our Commander in Chief. So the history of the act is important, as well as the Sense of congress.

PLEASE do not allow yourself to fall into the belief the US Military cannot be used here in the United States. It is false, and why would you trust local police so much more than someone who chose to serve their nation?

Collapse, may take missile defense with it.

2009-03-26T09:04:00.003-05:00

As if the fight for missile defense was not going to be tough enough with our entire US government in the hands of the left, a much larger stumbling block may have just been thrown down. This collapse could destroy all the effort put in to the European shield.

Open For Questions. (UPDATED)

2009-03-24T19:15:00.005-05:00

Here is my favorite question so far from the newest New new media site by this Administration (Open For Questions). I have been through nearly 100 as I vote. Here is my favorite (as a real question), find yours and leave it in the comments!

"I'd like to directly see the results from the stimulus funds already deployed. Will there be a sign on road projects, for example, so we know that project happened because of the new funds?"

[UPDATED:]
Holy CRAP. This is what the left has delivered to our country:

"Would you be willing to tax all income over $250,000 at a rate of 91%? This is how is was until about 30 years ago? Does anyone need that much money to survive?"

Umm maybe because you are punishing achievement? How about you make kids in school and college pay more in tuition the higher their grades are? Fair is fair I'd have to say.

[UPDATED:]
BEST QUESTION I THINK I WILL FIND:

"I have a Masters, lost my job a year ago, & can't afford a trampoline for my kids. There is a $3,500 swing set outside your window .You proclaim "we're all in this together". As a millionaire, how do you relate to my struggle to merely get a job?"

Dreams of history coming true.

2009-03-23T18:15:00.002-05:00

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.

— President Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983

Umm... speechless (vulgar rant)

2009-03-21T19:23:00.002-05:00

Seriously? Is he f'ing serious?

Obama criticizes some Gitmo release decisions

By Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Mar 21, 2009 15:52:28 EDT

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says the U.S. hasn’t done a good job sorting out who should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Obama says in a broadcast interview that some of the people released from the facility in Cuba have rejoined terrorist groups. He also says U.S. officials have not always been effective in determining which prisoners will be a danger once they are let go.

But he says the Bush administration’s policy of holding detainees for years on end with no trials is “unsustainable,’ and has only fueled anti-American sentiments.

In a taped interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” he also disputes former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that plans to close Guantanamo will make America less safe.

CBS released excerpts Saturday from the interview. The show will air Sunday evening

It was your new policies you MORON! You are making it worse. You were the FUCKING IDIOT that said "close" GTMO when you had NO CLUE WHAT THE HELL to do with the ECs!In your effort to bend over and take it up the rear on behalf of America to "rebuild our status" in the world YOU want to let terrorists run free.

With all due respect Mr. President, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IN THE HELL DANGER YOU ARE RELEASING ON THE WORLD.

Cheney was right.

The one and only AIG post I will do. (UPDATED)

2009-03-21T09:26:00.004-05:00

Read the entire report here...

I want to know if the politicians on this list that received donations from AIG, and are now treating AIG like they raped our fruited plains will be returning this money? $165 million is such a small amount when compared to the overall situation... this has become a smokescreen like none other.

In relation to the $165 million Politicians took .0039% of that amount for their campaigns. Shouldn't they return the money, it's for the "taxpayers" after all.

A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of (a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.

That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone.

As Krauthammer points out this $165 million (which is indeed a boat load for most people) is like spitting in the ocean when put in to context. So I say if you are going to spend my money bailing companies out, then have hearings (costing money) about getting the money back regardless of the fact that the economy is not teetering due to this $165 million! Then:

Congressmen and Senators, give back the money or rid yourself of the honorable titles and take that of hypocrite. If you say the CEOs do not deserve such benefits, you are the ones that signed off on the stimulus money so you on the Hill and White House deserve the money even LESS than the execs.

And that is all I have to say about AIG.

[UPDATE:]

GOP wants probe into AIG donation

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) | New York's Republican Party says the Democrat-controlled state government is ignoring calls for an investigation into a $100,000 donation to the state Democratic Party from American International Group days before officials initiated the bailout of the insurance giant.

State Republican Chairman Joseph Mondello accuses Democrats of a duck-and-cover response to disclosure of the donation, first reported Thursday by the Associated Press.

"Several public calls have been issued for a thorough investigation into the matter, yet the all-Democrat state government continues to stonewall and refuses a thorough and independent investigation," Mr. Mondello said.

Continue reading here at the Washington Times...

How much does the left hate the military?

2009-03-20T11:34:00.004-05:00

(h/t Pat Dollard, read the story here.)

BlackFive's take on it.

Missile Defense is un-proven?

2009-03-19T14:43:00.002-05:00

Now we have more success (PDF) coming in the THAAD program the other day (WMV):

March 18, 2009
Successful Intercept in Missile Defense Flight Test

The Department of Defense's Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Army soldiers from the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas, completed a successful intercept of a ballistic missile target during a test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense element of the nation's Ballistic Missile Defense System March 17 at approximately 2:30 p.m. Hawaii time (8:30 p.m. EDT) at the Pacific Missile Range Facility off the island of Kauai in Hawaii. Preliminary indications are that planned flight test objectives were achieved. THAAD is a mobile system now in development designed to intercept short to medium range ballistic missiles.

Soldiers of the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade conducted launcher, fire control and radar operations, using tactics, techniques and procedures developed by the U.S. Army Air Defense School. The THAAD program is managed by the Missile Defense Agency in Washington, D.C., and executed by the THAAD Project Office in Huntsville, Ala.

Each and every phase of a missiles flight is being countered. Success, I suppose, is failure to President Obama.

Where flip-flopping, missile defense, and the stimulus come together.

POLL: Vice President Cheney

2009-03-15T20:28:00.002-05:00

Here is the transcript, and both Q&A. Regarding safety:

KING: I'd like to just simply ask you, yes or no, by taking those steps, do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.

Regarding Rush:

KING: What next for your party? There has been a big dust-up in recent days, in parts stoked by the White House, about Rush Limbaugh making some comments. David Frum, a conservative who worked in your administration, says that Rush Limbaugh is kryptonite, because he drives away the voters the Republicans need to build the road to discovery. Is Rush Limbaugh kryptonite?

CHENEY: No, Rush is a good friend. I love him. I think he does great work and has for years. He's now offered to debate President Obama on his radio show. Hell, I'd pay to see that! It would be interesting to have developed.

I think Rush is a good man and serves a very important purpose.

I TOLD YOU SO

2009-03-14T13:40:00.005-05:00

That is right, all the pieces of the puzzle are falling together! I am sure as usual the left will scoff at such an idea, and I am not saying that Russia does not have a right to do some of the things it is doing...I just want people to see it for what it really is. It is a return to the Soviet Era. The weapons still exist and the mindset of the communist Soviet rule is back.

For crying out loud, look at Putin. He looks like he walked right off the silver screen of a Bond film. I have sadly documented this over years, but people just don't want to have to imagine going back to the Cold War days. We all want the Wall gone and the beauty, art, and freedom of the West to strive over the dark and gloomy East.

Russia could use bases for its strategic bombers on the doorstep of the United States in Cuba and Venezuela to underpin long-distance patrols in the region, a senior air force officer said Saturday.

"This is possible in Cuba," General Anatoly Zhikharev, chief of the Russian air force's strategic aviation staff, told the Interfax-AVN military news agency.

The comments were the latest signal that Moscow intends to project its military capability in far-flung corners of the globe despite a tight defence budget and hardware that experts consider in many respects outdated.

CASTRO AND HIS SECOND COLD WAR(20060210):

There is a new Cold War and, what good Cold War doesn't involve a missile crisis? Of course like any good show the second one has to be better. The first Cold War involved 2 countries, the missile crisis introduced a 3rd party player for a short time. I now introduce the players.

Nothing better than to pick up where we left off. Russia, land of well, snow. They spent many years toe-to-toe with us and now plan to again. I understand the people out there saying "no...no" you are being over-dramatic! Am I?

"President Vladimir Putin boasted Tuesday that Russia has new missiles capable of penetrating any missile defense system and said he had briefed the French president on their capabilities."

USSR WATCH TWO(20070530):

The Soviet Union is once again ratcheting up the rhetoric aimed at the US like they did in the Cold War. The only problem is they are not the force they were then. Between the fall of communism and their grip on vast areas they failed. However, as the months pass the (need I remind you) “ex-“KGB President Putin has taken steps back towards the good ol’ days. The steps he has taken have even had some on the left, and those that hate America peeved.

USSR WATCH THREE (20070726):

What is it that we always hear people say? Oh yes “the children are our future.” Let’s hope that is not the case, otherwise my USSR talk which started off as a mild half-truth is becoming a scary fact in the world. A new poll conducted in the current Russia (soon to be USSR) showed that half of nearly 2,000 kids between 16-19 thought Stalin was a wise leader.

USSR WATCH FOUR (20070818):

"I made a decision to restore flights of Russian strategic bombers on a permanent basis, and at 00:00 today, August 17, 14 strategic bombers, support aircraft and aerial tankers were deployed. Combat duty has begun, involving 20 aircraft.

USSR WATCH FIVE (20070926):

“Putin has stressed the need for patriotism and pride, restored Soviet- era symbols such as the music for the national anthem, and has said repeatedly that Western portrayals of Russia and its history are too negative.”

"I was not satisfied with this," Gorbachev said, suggesting it smacked of a return to the Soviet era.”

USSR WATCH (20090227):

Well sure enough we have Russia working hard to push the US out of a base used for the support in the Global War on Terrorism, in Afghanistan. Was not one of President Obama's campaign points to "win" in Afghanistan? But now he IS being tested and instead of standing up to Putin... he seems to not be worried about SUPPORTING the efforts in Afghanisatan over standing up to Putin!

Find all of my posts re: the USSR and Russia by looking at these two site searches:

USSR Russia

Education Reduces Stigma Facing Redeployed Soldiers

2009-03-13T13:45:00.003-05:00

Education Reduces Stigma Facing Redeployed Soldiers
By Mark Heeter
Special to American Forces Press Service

SCHWEINFURT, Germany, March 13, 2009 – Stigma is a six-letter word with enormous consequences, a senior health official said.

"Stigma kills," said Army Brig. Gen. (Dr.) Loree K. Sutton, special assistant to the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs for psychological health and traumatic brain injury, borrowing a catchphrase she learned from colleagues in the Canadian armed forces.

"They consider stigma a deadly, toxic workplace hazard. I like that term. Because as a leader, if any of us become aware of a deadly, toxic workplace hazard, we're not content with just minimizing it. No, we have to eliminate," Sutton said during a recent visit to the Schweinfurt Health Clinic here.

And one key to de-stigmatizing the mental and psychological challenges facing soldiers upon redeployment is education, said Army 1st Sgt. Creed McCaslin of the Warrior Transition Battalion at Fort Lewis, Wash.

McCaslin joined Sutton on the Schweinfurt visit with Army Brig. Gen. (Dr.) Rhonda Cornum, director of the Army’s comprehensive soldier fitness program, and Army Brig. Gen. Keith Gallagher, commander of U.S. Army Europe Regional Medical Command.

"We have to educate society. You have to understand, when a soldier comes back, he's going to be different," said McCaslin, a Purple Heart recipient who has logged four deployments in his Army career.

"It's just not like turning off the light switch" for soldiers, and sometimes they have drastically different reactions to their environment, McCaslin said.

Cornum pointed out that "the majority of them will come back more appreciative of their family, more responsible. They will come back better able to determine what is important.”

Most redeploying troops return as better citizens after what can be a defining or changing moment in their lives, she said, especially reservists.

"I know for me, I appreciate life a lot more," McCaslin said. "Family's become a lot more important; society's become more important; my ethos, in general, my values on life have changed and become a lot stronger."

Most redeploying troops are “going to come back, and they're going to reintegrate into their communities," Cornum said. However, she said, “they may have some of that hyper-alertness; they won't be the same … the ways they will come back better will not be obvious [initially]."

Americans need to be engaged with the military to learn about mental health, mild traumatic brain injuries, and psychological impacts of combat, Sutton stressed.

"We want to educate the country and ignite the level of dialogue and hope," she said.

(Mark Heeter serves with the U.S. Army Garrison Schweinfurt public affairs office.)

Pelosi abusing a privlege and the military, at once (UPDATED)

2009-03-10T16:19:00.005-05:00

Here we go again. It happened before where the new Speaker thought the USAF is her private airline. Mostly due to the fact that she is third in line for the Oval Office, gives me enough reason to feel she may "need" an aircraft.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly requested military aircraft to shuttle her and her colleagues and family around the country, according to a new report from a conservative watchdog group. Representatives for Judicial Watch, which obtained e-mails and other documents from a Freedom of Information request, said the correspondence shows Pelosi has abused the system in place to accommodate congressional leaders and treated the Air Force as her "personal airline."
... In one e-mail, aide Kay King complained to the military that they had not made available any aircraft the House speaker wanted for Memorial Day recess. "It is my understanding there are NO G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable ... The Speaker will want to know where the planes are," King wrote.

So now she needs MULTIPLE planes at her beckon call? I do not think so. This is unacceptable and I want to know when the Commander in Chief is going to step forward and tell her that the United States Air Force is not her private airline, and they take orders from HIM... not her ugly old face. (Yeah I went personal, deal.)

One of my personal favorite excerpts:

Documents obtained from the U.S. Army include correspondence from Speaker Pelosi's office requesting an Army escort and three military planes to transport Pelosi and other members of Congress to Cleveland, Ohio, for the funeral services of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Pelosi noted in her letter of August 22, 2008, that such a request, labeled "Operation Tribute" was an "exception to standard policy."

Three planes? Ummm, F. U. Coming Summer of 2009, Speaker Pelosi's Yacht...

[UPDATE:]

RedState did some fantastic work on this:

The email traffic makes it clear that, even if Pelosi herself wasn’t on the horn to DOD demanding personal transport, more comfort, and personal use of military bases and resources, her staff certainly was — and the DOD knew full well that the requests were coming not from the House Sergeant-at-Arms office, as Pelosi claimed, but from those speaking for the Speaker herself.

As well as Michelle Malkin:

Another official pointed out the “hidden costs” associated with the speaker’s last minute changes and cancellations. “We have…folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc.” Upset that a specific type of aircraft was not available to her boss, a Pelosi staffer carped to the DoD coordinators: “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker.”

DHS aka: Free ATM

2009-03-06T12:44:00.002-05:00

Secretaries Donovan and Napolitano Announce Hurricane Recovery Funding for Louisiana

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IN THE HELL THE GOVERNMENT IS USING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO FIX THE ECONOMY/DISTRIBUTE MONEY???

Additionally, Napolitano announced that FEMA will extend the Relocation Assistance Program to May 1, 2009. Families that were displaced from their primary residence in a disaster declared area as a result of Katrina and Rita are eligible for up to $4,000 in reimbursement for relocation expenses through the Relocation Assistance Program. Under the new extension, applicants can file a claim if they incurred relocation expenses between Aug. 29, 2005 and May 1, 2009.

Oh great so the bureaucratic mess of DHS that I never liked (yeah, even under Bush!) is going to be part of this economic stimulus and redistribution of wealth? What in God's name is going on. Now I am really pissed off. I don't want any of my money paying for a city below sea level to continue. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

The US Taxpayers are paying for people to f'ing move? Are you kidding me? ARE YOU GOD DAMN KIDDING ME?

So while I am making sure use coupons to keep money in the bank, my taxes are paying for the damn bubble wrap of people moving..still to this day? Almost 4 years later? Please pardon me while I call 911 prior to my head EXPLODING.

Trust enemies, Deny, and non-transparency.

2009-03-06T11:15:00.003-05:00

UNDISCLOSED -- So we have had the flap over the Obama Administration willing to toss missile defense to the wolves on the basis that the USSR and Iran will keep their word. Then we have SECSTATE taking part in tossing eastern Europe & parts of NATO under the bus. Do I need to post the Zucker commercial again to show how trusting our enemies works out?

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he wanted to work with Russia to resolve a nuclear stand-off with Iran but denied reports he had offered to slow deployment of a missile defense shield in exchange for Moscow's help.

I have an idea. Why doesn't Obama break out some of that good old transparency and release the actual letter sent to the USSR? There came a point in the Cuban Missile Crisis where we made public highly sensitive intelligence to prove what was going on. This letter cannot be nearly as sensitive, and yet the situation we are in is getting closer and closer to "crisis."

Truth Commission? (UPDATED)

2009-03-05T11:20:00.003-05:00

(Yes it is still shots, but I am not all super at making videos. Content people, content.)

Email Senator Leahy:
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on Establishing a Truth Commission

Senate Judiciary Cmte. Chairman Leahy (D-VT) held a hearing on the creation of a nonpartisan commission to investigate past national security policies. Sen. Leahy (D-VT) first called for a truth commission, which would inquire into alleged wrongdoing by past Administrations, during an event on Capitol Hill.

[UPDATE:]

Sippican Cottage: My Father Asks For Nothing

2009-03-04T14:25:00.000-05:00

Sippican Cottage: My Father Asks For Nothing

Poll (not) heard 'round the world!

2009-03-04T13:04:00.003-05:00

MAJOR HAT-TIP: All American Blogger

I don't recall the left being outraged at THEMSELVES...do you? Not trying to continue the Steele vs. Limbaugh battle. This is about hypocritical democrats being OK 3 years ago with wanting a President to fail (based on policy I will assume), while now we are all supposed to jump on the Hope 'n Change train and toss our principles aside because he is "historic."

With all due respect, shove that where the sun don't shine.

Troops opine.

2009-03-04T10:44:00.003-05:00

The goal of C.I.R to discuss and prove: An effective country means striving and aiming for victory, anything else is unacceptable. What part do the liberals and press play in the United States overall mission?

In this case President Obama is the Liberal. There were interesting differences when I was watching it was only recently that I came across the following two posts: Amy Proctor, Blackfive. I was actually on the phone with an avid troop supporter who we all know, and the two of us ended up speaking about the differences.

This in no way means that the military will not follow orders but I think it is "instructive" to look at the flat honest response of the two Commanders in Chief.

Heritage leading on MDA as always...

2009-03-04T09:43:00.002-05:00

Missile Mayhem
By James Carafano

When is a negotiation not a negotiation? And a rejection not a rejection? Apparently in the Alice in Wonderland exchange of notes and replies between the United States and Russia.

President Obama sent a secret letter to the Russian president suggesting if Iran did not have a nuclear and ballistic missile program the United wouldn’t need to build a missile defense shield. The Russians replied that they had no interest in trading anything to prevent the United States from building missile defense sites in Europe. They were just dead-sent against it. Once the letter became public both rejected the suggestion that they were negotiating over missile defense as a bargaining chip.

That left most analysts like myself speechless–did they really believe anybody believes this was anything but a clear rebuff to the new president. As I told the USA Today, “I’m not sure what the administration is doing. You can’t negotiate away something that doesn’t exist. It’s just nutty.”

To our dismay, the administration follow-up was even stranger. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama would weigh a number of factors in deciding whether to proceed with a missile-defense system, “including whether or not the system worked and the cost of the system.” By sending signals it does not take missile defense seriously, the White House is only encouraging the Iranians to speed-up their missile and weapons programs and the Russians to demand more quid pro quo in any negotiations with the United States.

Yet, folks continue to believe the administration “hitting the reset button” rhetoric means something. “Michael Mandelbaum, a professor at The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said Obama’s “charm offensive” is not likely to work with Iran, Syria and other U.S. adversaries. But pursuing it with Russia, he said, is the right course….If we could trade these (missile) deployments for serious Russian pressure on Iran” to stop its nuclear ambitions, he said, “that would be a very good trade for us.”

Hello, the Russians have already said “No!” to this. And with good reason…they are selling nuclear technology and air defenses to protect nuclear sites to the Iranians. Even if the Russians said “Yes” the Iranians would say “No.” They have no interest in giving up their weapons program as a favor to the Russians. And even if the Iranians said “Yes” it would take years to negotiate a verification system to prove they really were disarming…and in that time could covertly build missiles and nuclear weapons…and if we stopped building missile defenses now we would be caught with no defense.

I wish the folks at the White House would spend even five minutes watching 33 Minutes, our documentary about the missile threat. If they did they might be less inclined to dangerous diplomacy, that leaves America and its allies hostage to foreign missile threats while folks in the administration engage in talks that will likely only make us less not more safe.

Obam-ing the Military. Yikes!

2009-03-02T12:56:00.003-05:00

Some of the key portions from the following piece in the Wall Street Journal. (h/t Wordsmith) Ok, scratch that... the entire thing is important and I always worry about articles disappearing off sites. So here is the entire piece:

Declining Defense
Obama's budget does cut one federal department.

For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward.

The White House proposes to spend $533.7 billion on the Pentagon, a 4% increase over 2009. Include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would be another $130 billion (or a total of $664 billion), and overall defense spending would be around 4.2% of GDP, the same as 2007.

However, that 4% funding increase for the Pentagon trails the 6.7% overall rise in the 2010 budget -- and defense received almost nothing extra in the recent stimulus bill. The Joint Chiefs requested $584 billion for 2010 and have suggested a spending floor of 4% of GDP. Both pleas fell on deaf ears. The White House budget puts baseline defense spending at 3.7% of GDP, not including Iraq and Afghanistan. The budget summary pleads "scarce resources" for the defense shortfall, which is preposterous given the domestic spending blowout.

More ominously, Mr. Obama's budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years -- to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade. This means that relative both to the economy and especially to domestic priorities, defense spending is earmarked to decline. Some of this assumes less spending on Iraq, which is realistic, but it also has to take account of Mr. Obama's surge in Afghanistan. That war won't be cheap either.

The danger is that Mr. Obama may be signaling a return to the defense mistakes of the 1990s. Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000, from 4.8% in 1992. We learned on 9/11 that 3% isn't nearly enough to maintain our commitments and fight a war on terror -- and President Bush spent his two terms getting back to more realistic outlays for a global superpower.

American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama's budget isn't adequate to meet those challenges.

That means Secretary of Defense Robert Gates faces some hard choices when he finishes his strategic review this spring. An early glimpse will come soon when the Pentagon must decide whether to continue to purchase more Lockheed F-22 Raptors. The Air Force is set to buy 183 of the next generation fighters, though it wanted 750, which would be enough to give the U.S. air supremacy over battlefields over the next three decades. Now the fighter may be prematurely mothballed.

Weapons programs, such as missile defense or the Army's Future Combat Systems, are also in danger. Others have been ridiculously delayed. The Air Force flies refueling tankers from the Eisenhower era. Mr. Obama's own 30-something Marine One helicopter is prone to break down and technologically out of date.

The Pentagon shouldn't get a blank check, though much of its procurement waste results from the demands made by Congress. Mr. Gates has also rightly focused on the immediate priority of irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. But history also teaches that a nation that downplays potential threats -- such as from China in outer space -- is likely to find itself ill-prepared when they arrive.

The U.S. ability to project power abroad has been crucial to maintaining a relatively peaceful world, but we have been living off the fruits of our Cold War investments for too long. We can't afford another lost defense decade.

CinC Pentagon Channel Interview

2009-03-01T15:55:00.006-05:00

President Obama of course spoke about his vision to draw down troops in Iraq but "surge" in Afghanistan. And once again more talk about "diplomatic efforts being ramped up."

"Well thought out strategy. Clear goals. Achievable. I can marshal and maintain strongest support possible from the folks back home."

So I am waiting, his "clear goals" seem to start and end at "diplomatic efforts." And what concerned me the most out of that exchange was the final sentence about support. It actually seems like "support at home" is an actual "goal." What kind of a leader is willing to actually imply in an interview that he would end a war if the Americans became restless?

Remember, terrorists have used the example of Somalia (Black Hawk Down) as proof they can win. Saying that we value life to such a degree that if they can kill a few Americans it will send the entire strength of the US military running the other way. Of course I value life, but at what point is life worth living if you don't stand up for what is right?

Here is the Commander in Chief of the sole superpower imply that if the public feels too much harm is being done he will not continue an endeavor? Where is Kennedy (the good one) when you need him:

"We choose not to do these things because they are easy, we choose to do them because they are hard."

Does President Obama think that 100% of the people at the time of the Revolutionary War were behind fighting a war? There were pockets of anti-war people, would he have then felt there was not enough support?

"Greater additional casualties, at least in the short term. Just as there was in Iraq."

What? Obama feels there will be greater casualties during the surge in Afghanistan? How can he commit troops to death? Hey the left spent the better part of 8 years asking Bush. But isn't it so ironic that when then Senator Obama was running around screaming about how the "surge hasn't worked," one of his reasons was an increased toll in life. So for all you youngins' out there. Surge resulting in KIAs under Bush is warmongering, surge resulting in KIAs under Obama is a "strategy" with "achievable goals." Ok.

But the best is his reasons given for the timeline being used:

"After the election takes place."

That is right, We cannot pull troops out NOW because they need time to have elections. ONCE AGAIN, fine when he says it...not fine when that was part of the Bush Strategy to stabilize Iraq. Ironic, and would be funny if it wasn't so god damn pathetic.

As we start to come to an end, he is asked why the difference in numbers for the draw down? He gave a completely legitimate reason:

"All these decisions have to be made based on what the situation is at the time."

From him I do NOT accept that. I am hearing support at home is most important, no diplomacy is, wait...the current situation. When Bush made similar comments the left tried to laugh him off the Stage along with General Petraeus...I simply want to Give Obama the same respect he gave the two of them.

In conclusion I am sadly forced back to the issue of the Commander in Chief inspiring hope, belief in our strength. Do you think the following statement induces such a feeling in Americans or our enemies?

"We do not have the strategic capability."

I am sorry but President Obama Has a long way to go in making me feel as though his heart is in the battle as much as former President Bush. Nor his mind. Which of these two interviews fills you with more pride and HOPE? HOPE I Say!

Also note how President Obama says his wife meets with the families, but former President Bush speaks about how he does...just saying.

SECDEF or Mouthpiece? [UPDATED]

2009-03-01T11:07:00.003-05:00

I really did like Sec. Gates. and I realize that he does not make all decisions, he serves a new President and must now carry out President Obama's policies. But recent actions be it the Dover move or this response has disappointed me.

Makes sure that he calls on everyone? What the hell? Is Obama the teacher and the administration his elementary school class?

[UPDATE:]

I encourage every member of the military to take on the mantle of fearless, thoughtful, but loyal dissent when the situation calls for it.
—Dr. Robert M. Gates, 2008

I wonder how much "dissent" SECDEF put up... if any?

USSR Watch

2009-02-27T10:23:00.005-05:00

The USSR (ok, Russia) is rearing its head (that above photo was not decades ago, it was just last year). I have done a lot of work on this subject matter on CIR. They are pushing forward...to go backwards to the "good old days" of the Soviet ways. And if the children are the future, there was another piece I did:

HALF OF RUSSIAN YOUTHS FEEL STALIN WAS A WISE LEADER...

Remember that? Well sure enough we have Russia working hard to push the US out of a base used for the support in the Global War on Terrorism, in Afghanistan. Was not one of President Obama's campaign points to "win" in Afghanistan? But now he IS being tested and instead of standing up to Putin... he seems to not be worried about SUPPORTING the efforts in Afghanisatan over standing up to Putin!

Meanwhile, these political maneuverings place Washington in a bind regarding strategic supplies to Afghanistan, Paul Goble emphasizes. “It’s always better to have more than one route – for pipelines or for air supply,” he observes. According to Goble, “If you put yourself in a position where everyone can see that you desperately need X, then the price of X goes up and the willingness of people to prevent you from getting X in order to create problems for you in hopes of getting a trade-off somewhere else goes up, too.” And he adds, “We now have a Russian government that is willing to use force across military borders and that is willing to bribe countries to support it against the United States.”

Last week Washington reached a tentative agreement with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to allow the passage of non-military cargo bound for Afghanistan. Russia and Kazakhstan have also agreed to allow U.S. non-military supplies to be transported to troops in Afghanistan by rail.

Well they have "buzzed" our aircraft carriers and battle groups. Last February:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A pair of Russian TU-95 Bear bombers overflew a US aircraft carrier in the western Pacific at an altitude of 2,000 feet (660 meters) over the weekend, prompting US fighter jets to scramble, a US defence official said Monday. Four F-18 fighters jets intercepted the Russian bombers Saturday morning, but not before they had overflown the USS Nimitz, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Japanese F-15 fighters had earlier scrambled to intercept another pair of Bear bombers, and escorted them out of the area, said a US military official who asked not to be identified. The Japanese government issued a strong protest with Moscow, but Russian officials denied their aircraft had crossed into Japanese airspace.

The second pair of bombers were flying south of Japan when they "essentially turned inbound toward the USS Nimitz, and USS Nimitz aircraft launched and intercepted the bombers," said the defense official. The US F-18s escorted the bombers until they departed the area, the official said. "There were no verbal communications between the Nimitz aircraft or the Russian aircraft," the official said. The official said one of the Russian bombers flew directly over the US carrier at an altitude of 2,000 feet, while the second bomber flew at its side at the same altitude.

The incident comes at a time when Russia is reviving the long-range air patrols that were once a standard feature of the Cold War. It was the second time since July 2004 that a Russian Bear bomber has overflown a US aircraft carrier. That incident involved the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan. The Nimitz, which was on a routine patrol in the western Pacific at the time of the incident, was back Monday in port in Sasebo, Japan, the official said.

Now while this is not the first time the USSR has either come close or violated NORAD airspace, it is interesting, recently, for the following reason:

As security officials worked to secure Ottawa on the eve of U.S. President Barack Obama's visit, Canadian fighter jets were scrambling to intercept a Russian bomber plane in the Arctic skies.

At a press conference Friday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the incident happened on Feb. 16th.

"At no time did Russian airplanes enter Canadian airspace but within 24 hours of the president's visit here to Canada last week we did scramble two F-18 fighter planes from Norad (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and Canada command," MacKay said.

Sure this could be coincidence but I fail to buy that. Were they trying to "bomb" the President? Of course not, But why not push in every way? Maybe they will get a 1962 results like Kennedy removing Jupiter missiles in Turkey President Obama will end installation of missile defense in Europe, maybe even get rid of that entire pesky program all together.

Obama's New Era of the DoD

2009-02-26T15:10:00.003-05:00

The 2010 Budget for the Department of Defense(DOD) requests $533.7 billion, or an increase of four percent from the 2009 enacted level of $513.3 billion (excluding funding from the American recovery and reinvestment Act of 2009).

Is it a "real" increase when they are just placing items that are normally funded by supplemental funding by Congress, in to the total? Of course not!!! It is, IMHO, a bullshit way to make it LOOK like you are increasing funding but really just...

In addition, the Budget will incorporate into the base those items previously funded in emergency supplementals that should be considered base or ongoing activities, including certain medical services, family support initiatives, security assistance to foreign governments, and enhancements to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

*Source of Quotes: A New Era of Responsibility

Red Flag 2009 begins.

2009-02-26T11:59:00.002-05:00

Red Flag 09-3 exercise begins

by Mike Estrada
99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs

2/25/2009 - NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) -- Southern Nevada residents may have notice increased military aircraft activity as the latest Red Flag exercise began Feb. 23.

Red Flag is a realistic combat training exercise involving the air forces of the United States and its allies. The exercise is conducted on the 15,000-square-mile Nevada Test and Training Range, north of Las Vegas. Red Flag is one of a series of advanced training programs administered by officials at the U.S. Air Force Warfare Center and at Nellis, through the 414th Combat Training Squadron. (Cont...)

CPAC 2009

2009-02-26T11:17:00.000-05:00

Live video by Ustream

“Providing for the Common Defense”

2009-02-24T22:36:00.002-05:00

I wanted to crop more out but I needed the first paragraph for context...and I just think the last paragraph is just perfection. PERFECTION.

Live Blog: A Defense Dud
James Carafano

Posted February 24th, 2009 at 10.07pm in Protect America.

“Providing for the Common Defense” is a fundamental obligation of government. Obama’s challenge is to pay for what the Pentagon needs in the face spiraling national debt and the growing explosion of entitlement spending (numbers that dwarf the defense budget and all the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined). The speech suggests he has no clue how to do that—because all he did was repeat empty promises that he made on the campaign trail.

...

Obama also promised to “reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.” This was an empty campaign promise made over and over again—and never challenged by the press. Virtually every Cold War system in the inventory was used during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and during the operations after. Planes launched from Cold War aircraft carriers and Cold War submarines firing cruise missiles helped topple Saddam. Cold War B-52 bombers supported tribesmen fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Tanks built during the Cold War helped the “surge” save Iraq. As for new systems, they have all been put in production after the Cold War ended and justified by post-Cold War security challenges. Missile defenses are needed to guard against ballistic missiles from Iran and North Korea. Modern aircraft like the F-22 are required to penetrate modern air defenses. Ships and submarines are needed to project American power around the world. If the administration makes deep cuts in procurement it is not because our troops don’t need new equipment, it is simply because the White House wants to cut defense spending.

Just sayin'...

2009-02-23T18:21:00.003-05:00

2006 Mid-Term Election

Dow Jones Average

I did well through the Clinton and Bush Administrations. I only seemed to take a hit in my portfolio since January 2007. I am no economic genius, just pointing out some interesting coincidences.
(Screen captures from CNN MSN.)

Missile Defense not, President Obama is "unproven."

2009-02-21T13:11:00.003-05:00

We currently have two dangers on the horizon: Iran may go nuclear and North Korea may develop a reliable missile capable of reaching the west coast. And what strong words does the United States Government have for such problems? Our Secretary of State calls such actions “unhelpful.” If that is not the understatement of the nuclear age I do not know what is!

To test its intentions, I submitted a detailed proposal to Foreign Ministry nuclear negotiator Li Gun for a "grand bargain" in advance of a visit to Pyongyang last month. North Korea, I suggested, would surrender to the International Atomic Energy Agency the 68 pounds of plutonium it has already declared in denuclearization negotiations. In return, the United States would conclude a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, normalize diplomatic and economic relations, put food and energy aid on a long-term basis, and support large-scale multilateral credits for rehabilitation of North Korea's economic infrastructure.

The North's rebuff was categorical and explicit. Its declared plutonium has "already been weaponized," I was told repeatedly during 10 hours of discussions.

That was to be expected. The North feels compelled to compete on the global stage in the nuclear realm. My problem comes in the logic people place behind arguments, from the same article:

The strongest argument for this approach is that the United States has nothing to fear from a nuclear North Korea. Pyongyang developed nuclear weapons for defensive reasons, to counter a feared U.S. preemptive strike, and U.S. nuclear capabilities in the Pacific will deter any potential nuclear threat from the North.

Really? So let me get this right you are going to hedge your bets on a regime that has spat in the face of the United States and United Nations time after time and are notorious for NOT keeping their word. That is insanity! If you are going to do that why not go ahead and push for missile defense? If the conclusion is they only have the possibility of 4 warheads, our defense “shield” would not compete against the USSR but it would do just fine against those.

As for the unproven part President Obama:

On December 5, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) performed a successful intercept test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense interceptor. The GMD interceptor destroyed an incoming ballistic missile launched out of Kodiak, Alaska, in space over the Pacific Ocean. President-elect Barack Obama has stated that he will cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems. His statement implies that the missile defense program's interceptor systems rely on unproven technology. The December 5 test, along with other MDA tests, demonstrates that the implication behind this statement is inaccurate.

When it all boils down…it comes to the so called “wasted money” defense. Well you cannot use the “unproven” BS with me, and second the idea that it is too expensive…

The White House has asked the Pentagon to cut nearly $2 billion, or up to roughly 20 percent, from missile defense in its fiscal 2010 budget, a prominent advocate of the costliest U.S. weapons development effort said on Friday.

Farming Broadband grants to rural communities
$2 BILLION
Food 13% increase in food stamp payments
$20 BILLION
Commerce Grants to provide wireless and broadband infrastructure to communities, including public computer centers and sustainable adoption of broadband service
$4.3 BILLION
Justice Grants to state and local law enforcement to hire extra police officers
$1 BILLION
Science National Science Foundation research
$2.5 BILLION
Environment Flood control and water management construction, regulation and investigations
$4.1 BILLION
Energy Home weatherization grants to low and middle-income families
$5 BILLION
Energy Advanced batteries manufacturing grants
$2 BILLION
Energy Research and development of renewable and efficient energy technology
$2.5 BILLION
Energy Fossil energy research and development
$1 BILLION
Energy Grants for industrial carbon capture and energy efficiency improvement projects
$1 BILLION
Energy Physics research including high-energy physics, nuclear physics and fusion energy sciences
$1.6 BILLION
Energy Money for federal power marketing administrations in electric power transmission systems
$6.5 BILLION

Environment & Energy $50.8 BILLION

Government Construction, repair and energy alterations to federal buildings and facilities
$5.5 BILLION
Labor Grants to states for youth training, including summer jobs
$1.2 BILLION
Labor Grants to states for dislocated worker employment and training activities
$1.3 BILLION
Health and services National Institutes of Health biomedical research
$9.5 BILLION
Health and services Funding for research comparing effectiveness of treatments funded by Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP
$1.1 BILLION
Health and services Grants to states for childcare services for low-income working parents
$2 BILLION
Transportation Grants for airport improvements
$1,100
Transportation Grants for capital investments in designated high-speed rail corridors
$8 BILLION
Housing Repairs and modernization of public housing projects
$4 BILLION
Housing Energy efficiency retrogrades to low-income housing, including new insulation, windows and furnaces
$2.3 BILLION
Individual aid Two-year extension of program providing income support and training benefits for workers who lose their jobs because of outsourcing overseas
$1.6 BILLION

Excuse me, but all of that from one stimulus bill and you want to cut $2b from missile defense because it has not been “proven” enough for you? President Obama you are cutting as much from MDA as you are willing to spend to make sure people have broadband? $8b to make sure we have high-speed trains, but hey that pesky shooting down nukes thing…who cares cause we will be able to travel at warp speed on a train right in to Union Station and the awaiting mushroom cloud.

Overboard? Ok, yes but it makes my point that as I go through the stimulus bill I see a LOT of money thrown at “research” and/or “development.” President Obama why are you willing to spend twice as much as you want to cut from MDA, on “investigating floods” and “repairing public housing”? At least in the past when the argument was over a few billion dollars towards MDA most of the spending was more reasonable, even on the left. President Obama, you shoved forward a partisan $800 BILLION SPENDING BILL, yet want to cut a measly $2 BILLION from MDA, 20% of the MDA budget?

At a time when missile defense is making great strides this President may hamstring the entire program enough to make it “unproven.”

President Obama, it is said you can be anything you want. It was never “proven” a black man could be POTUS. Why did you not give up on the “research and development” of that “unproven” idea?

Previous Missile Defense, please read up: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

POTUS "ok's" Troop surge.

2009-02-18T10:32:00.006-05:00

I want it to be clear, I fully support a surge. However, I want people to watch closely to not allow this to be a diversion in order to get out of Iraq. Back on July 20th, 2007 this was said by, now, President Obama while campaigning in New Hampshire:

Obama told the crowd of more than 500 people that nobody wants to get U.S. troops out of Iraq more than he does, but doing so will require voters to pressure Senate Republicans, including New Hampshire Senators Judd Gregg and John Sununu, to break with President Bush.
Obama says there's no reason to give the president's troop surge more time.

"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."

The Illinois Senator also said the nation must be willing to "hunt down and take out" terrorists bent on carrying out extremist acts against the United States.

Obama pegged their number at twenty thousand people worldwide.

For NHPR News, I'm Josh Rogers.

Remember those days where the surge was "no good" and could not achieve anything? I am going to use a chart from a source I do not like that much, but in order to prevent the left from saying there is a "cooking of the books." In full disclosure his statement does make sense on one level, the snap shot, NON-strategic view.

In July you can see that the numbers had dropped so obviously the surge was working to lessen violence. In his defense previous months had been high in numbers, but you can see in July the numbers had dropped! (With the overall trend to continue.) In addition, it was just the previous month of June when the surge was to full strength. The question you are left with is what happened with the trend?

What did I mean in regards to him not looking at the strategic view? Well General Petraeus mentioned it in his much awaited report in April '08:

...a failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against Al Qaeda, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and for the effort to counter malign Iranian influence.

Outside of certain months that spiked the trend continued, to this day the trend stays strong and the Generals plan has worked. Maybe that is why President Obama has ok'd a 17,000 strong surge in Afghanistan. Now remember that is 85% of the 20,000 President Bush called for in Iraq.

The first graphic I used was not intended for this post, it was in the election...but it seemed to apply. 10% budget cut on the Department of Defense, the possible slash in missile defense, F-22? The military is our defense, we must keep it strong, listen to military leaders and support President Obama when he makes the right calls, and nail him on the wrong ones!

This surge is a good call, let's join together and support him. At the same time make sure he does NOT abandon Iraq!

Mark the date: 20090221 2000hrs

2009-02-17T19:41:00.002-05:00

"Taking Chance"

February 21st, 2009 2000hrs on HBO

RFC Radio!

2009-02-17T16:15:00.003-05:00

CHECK OUT RadioForConservatives Radio!!! Widget on the sidebar (to your right). Catch rock and politics! It's going to be the BEST place on the net for conservatives.

Missile Defense WSJ Op-Ed

2009-02-16T01:04:00.003-05:00

Obama's Missile Test
FEBRUARY 9, 2009, 11:30 A.M. ET

The Administration wavers on defenses in Europe.

Iran's launch last week of a satellite using a homegrown rocket is another reminder of why Europe needs a missile defense -- and needs to start building it now. Combine Iran's improving missile technology with its nuclear aspirations, and it's a lethal mix. This is especially timely given the debate inside the Obama Administration over whether to walk away from the U.S. promise to provide a defense shield for our European allies.

Iran now joins eight countries with indigenous space-launch capability -- an advance that, on the military side, translates into a step forward for its ballistic-missile technology. The threat isn't immediate, as the satellite was small and lightweight compared to a nuclear warhead, but neither is Europe's missile defense set to be deployed immediately. The reason to start early is precisely to be prepared, and not to have to scramble, if Iran develops its capability faster and the mullahs aren't as benign as some think.

That's why the Bush Administration pushed forward with a Europe-wide missile defense system to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic and built over the next six years. It's also why every NATO country has endorsed the U.S.-led effort. They have done so twice -- first among heads of state in Bucharest in April and again at a meeting of foreign ministers after the U.S. election. NATO also plans to pursue its own missile defenses in conjunction with the Polish and Czech sites.

The question now is whether the Obama Administration will stand by its predecessor's promise or, as is widely anticipated, suspend the European program. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama suggested missile defense was either ineffective or too expensive, or both. His nominee for the third-ranking position at the Pentagon, Michele Flournoy, has indicated that the deployment plans for Europe will be reviewed. In a speech over the weekend at the annual Munich security conference, Vice President Joseph Biden was ambiguous: "We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven to work and cost effective."

Suspending the program would have serious consequences. It would send a signal of American weakness to Iran, which the Obama Administration says it wishes to engage. If the mullahs watch the U.S. back down on confronting its missile threat, who could blame them for assuming it will also back down over its nuclear aspirations?

A suspension would also send a message of American irresolution to Russia, which opposes deploying the antimissile system in countries it considers part of its sphere of influence. This kind of Cold War thinking was on display again last week with the news that Moscow had bribed Kyrygyzstan to close a key U.S. air base for supplying Afghanistan. Backing down on missile defense would only encourage more such Russian behavior.

The U.S.-led missile defense program for Europe is aimed at the Iranian threat, and in no way diminishes Russia's own nuclear deterrent. Moscow knows this, yet it nonetheless threatens to deploy missiles in the Kalingrad enclave between NATO members Poland and Lithuania if the U.S. goes through with the defense system. Moscow has spurned U.S. invitations to participate in the program.

Hillary Clinton's State Department may hope to get more Russian cooperation against Iran in return for disavowing its commitment to Europe. But that's not worth the message it sends about the U.S. willingness to cave in the face of Russian intimidation. Russia may be prepared to cooperate on a modest scale on Iran -- but only if the U.S. forgoes the defense of Europe. That's no bargain.

The biggest fallout of a suspension would be among America's allies in Europe. Poland and the Czech Republic agreed at some political risk to host missile interceptors and a radar. If the U.S. reneges now, these newly free countries will have reason to doubt that they can trust any U.S. security commitments. Other NATO nations are also watching to see if the U.S. will remain a reliable partner against Russia.

Now that he has the responsibility of governing, Mr. Obama may reach a better understanding of the recent technological progress on a defensive shield. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been a firm supporter of a missile defense for Europe. National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a former NATO commander, knows how important the antimissile system is to the alliance.

The new Administration will also have to make a decision about whether to proceed with the planned expansion of the missile defense site at Fort Greely, Alaska, where 10 interceptors are stationed. Last week's news that North Korea may be planning another test of its long-range Taepodong-2 missile ought to make that an easy call.

Friend and foe alike are trying to take the measure of Mr. Obama, and to test him. Mr. Obama made the nurturing of U.S. alliances a major campaign theme, and, along with trade, the missile defense pact with Europe is the first test of whether he meant it.

(Sorry to my readers, I had this bookmarked and kept meaning to get it up here.)

Oversight??? Stimulus??? Me no understand.

2009-02-16T00:14:00.005-05:00

I am a person with little to no economic knowledge, so I have stayed out of the “stimulus” discussion. Recently reviewing the line items for it I noticed every category had money dedicated to “oversight.”

So they are spending money on oversight. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but maybe if they had spent more than a day reviewing and finalizing the bill then it would be a bit clearer as to where the money was to go? My opinion is yes.

Where is the $232.5 million going? PLEASE, where? And excuse me but isn’t Congress supposed to provide oversight on what they put forward. Remember the complaining from, none other then, Speaker Pelosi about wanting oversight…when they already had it?

This all brings us back to “oversight.” Excuse me but I seem to remember someone, no something, no some group…what was its name again?

About GAO

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. The head of GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States, is appointed to a 15-year term by the President from a slate of candidates Congress proposes. Gene L. Dodaro became Acting Comptroller General of the United States on March 13, 2008, succeeding David M. Walker, who appointed him upon resigning. Mr. Dodaro will serve in this position until the President nominates and the Senate confirms a successor from a list of candidates proposed by the Congress.

Our Mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced.

Our Core Values of accountability, integrity, and reliability are reflected in all of the work we do. We operate under strict professional standards of review and referencing; all facts and analyses in our work are thoroughly checked for accuracy.

Our Work is done at the request of congressional committees or subcommittees or is mandated by public laws or committee reports. We also undertake research under the authority of the Comptroller General. We support congressional oversight by

o auditing agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being spent efficiently and effectively;
o investigating allegations of illegal and improper activities;
o reporting on how well government programs and policies are meeting their objectives;
o performing policy analyses and outlining options for congressional consideration; and
o issuing legal decisions and opinions, such as bid protest rulings and reports on agency rules.

We advise Congress and the heads of executive agencies about ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical, equitable and responsive.

Our work leads to laws and acts that improve government operations, saving the government and taxpayers billions of dollars.

Oh, so there is already an entire office dedicated to oversight? Just one right? Oh but that is not also including the Congressional Budget Office:

CBO Fact Sheet

CBO's mandate is to provide the Congress with:

--Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and

--The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.

So the Congress has, on top of their staff, two entire offices to formulate briefs on Government programs and spending. Congress has the means to do this themselves, but instead they are taking their paycheck and then as part of the stimulus bill paying others to do their jobs. I think, like I said still confused on where this money is going and how it will be used to oversee said programs.

Out of $787 billion .03% (approx) is being spent on oversight, and even better yet...even though every category has money being spent on it for oversight, $25,000,000 is being spent on "Oversight of economic recovery package." So some of this "stimulus" bill is actually being spent on oversight, of oversight. *shaking head*

And I will leave you with some other categories (in this bill) compare that to the $25 million:

Military	Army child development centers	$80
Military	Army "warrior transition complexes"	$100
Military	Navy and Marine Corps troop housing	$100
Military	Navy and Marine Corps child development centers	$80
Military	Navy and Marine Corps energy conservation and alternative energy projects	$100
Military	Air Force troop housing	$100
Military	Air Force child development centers	$80
Military	Defense hospital construction	$1,330
Military	Defense energy conservation investments	$120
Military	Army National Guard construction	$50
Military	Air National Guard construction	$50
Military	Army family housing construction and repairs	$38.439
Military	Air Force family housing construction	$96.561
Military	Programs for military homeowners facing mortgage problems	$555
Veterans	Improvements to Veterans Affairs benefits administration, IT and claims processing	$200
Veterans	Renovations and energy efficiency improvements to veterans medical facilities	$1,000
Veterans	Grants for construction of state extended care facilities for veterans	$150
Veterans	National Cemetery renovations and repairs	$50

No offense is the best, defense? Offense?

2009-02-14T07:22:00.005-05:00

This is from an earlier post I had done regarding Innovation and the BMDS:

Thankfully President Bush saw the need for the system and if it required a change in policy to protect the US, then that is what needed to be done. So on December 13, 2001 he announced that the US would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. He also realized that over the years we would develop weapons systems and in the effort to make them perfect spent so much time testing them that they were obsolete when they reached the battlefield. So he changed some regulations allowing the typical ORD to be avoided and for new systems to be put online as quickly and as safely possible.

“The deployment of missile defenses is an essential element of our broader efforts to transform our defense and deterrence policies and capabilities to meet the new threats we face. Defending the American people against these new threats is my highest priority as Commander-in-Chief.”
— President George W. Bush, December 17, 2002

With Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons and missile technology, North Korea trying to develop nuclear technology and improve upon their ICBMs… and announcing they will have to launch missiles at the US if sanctions are imposed. How can anyone not see the threat and want to safeguard against it? The missile threat has been around far longer than our terrorist threat. We must guard against both and not open ourselves to a missile attack because we divert all resources into other threats. That is a recipe for disaster, and with nukes… one hell of a disaster.

With a left controlled Washington D.C. we will see things go the other way. Missile defense funding will slag to be done away with as will nuclear weaponry. So no defenses (that do work, thank you) and a weakened offensive force. Not a good combo!

February 5, 2009

Concerns on Proposed Reduction of U.S. Nuclear Stockpile to 1,000 Weapons

by Baker Spring

WebMemo #2274
According to press reports, President Obama has directed the U.S. to seek a future strategic arms control treaty with Russia that will reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile to 1,000 weapons, an 80 percent reduction. This leads to the question of how President Obama chose this number of 1,000. Unfortunately, circumstances make it clear that President Obama and his Administration have chosen this number arbitrarily.

When the U.S. undertakes an effort as sensitive and fundamental to its security as negotiating a strategic nuclear arms control treaty, it should do so on the basis of careful planning:
First, the President and his Administration must settle on a clear strategy and define the means by which the treaty will bolster that strategy;
Second, this strategy must identify the military and political requirements the U.S. nuclear force must fulfill over the expected life of the treaty; and
Third, such a strategy must establish a clear means of verifying compliance with the expected treaty and have specific plans for enforcing the terms of the treaty during its implementation.
These are the fundamental standards for effective arms control.
A Clear Lack of Planning

When the press reports announcing the pending arms control treaty were published, President Obama had been office precisely 17 days. It is utterly implausible that he and his Administration have taken any of the planning steps necessary to implement such an ambitious strategic nuclear arms control treaty. Obama's national security strategy, at a minimum, is months away from completion.

More importantly, there is no indication that the President has established the criteria for assuring the political and military utility of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and active arsenal that would remain in place following the ratification and execution of the planned treaty. Politically, it must be determined, among other things:

How the remaining nuclear arsenal will increase stability and lessen the likelihood of strategic strikes against the U.S. and its allies,
Whether the force will be based primarily on deterring strategic attacks by countering them or by relying on retaliatory strikes; and
How to extend the U.S. nuclear umbrella for the protection of its allies.

On the military side, planning will determine what targets the U.S. nuclear force must hold at risk and whether both the weapons and their delivery systems will meet these targeting requirements. Finally, clear standards for verification and enforcement must be established.

The Obama Administration has made no public assertion that any of these planning steps have been taken. What makes this lack of planning particularly disturbing is that there has been a torrent of recent reports that the state of the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure--including how the Air Force handles the weapons under its purview--is in decline. Indeed, on October 28, 2008, Secretary of Defense Gates told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that in his view the long-term prognosis for the nation's nuclear force was "bleak."
Doubting the Utility of Nuclear Weapons?

President Obama's apparent lack of concern over the management of the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure and arsenal--let alone the need to carefully prepare for arms control negotiations--leads to two conclusions:

The President sees the U.S. nuclear force as providing no national security, political, or military benefits; and
He would not be prepared to use nuclear weapons under any circumstance.

In this context, Obama's selection of the 1,000-weapon threshold for negotiations with Russia at least makes sense. He sees this figure as a round number that serves only as a marker along an intended path of U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament. Proceeding down this path requires none of the planning the U.S. has undertaken in the past regarding nuclear arms control. If nuclear weapons have no value, then any path to zero U.S. nuclear weapons is acceptable. The problem for President Obama, however, is that he has proclaimed the value, indeed the necessity, of a capable U.S. nuclear force until the time his goal of zero nuclear weapons worldwide is realized. Specifically, the White House website states: "Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist."
The Need for Caution

If President Obama's stated commitment to maintain a strong deterrent until global denuclearization is something more than subterfuge, then he should state that reports asserting that he has directed the U.S. to engage in negotiations with Russia to reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile to 1,000 weapons are inaccurate. Such a statement should also make it clear that any such negotiations will be undertaken in substantive terms only after Obama's Administration has concluded a careful planning process. It is a gross understatement to say that a policy based on the assumption that nuclear weapons have no value--and that nuclear arms control is therefore a low stakes game--is fraught with danger. President Obama needs to be more careful and deliberate.

Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy, in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

So with no real planning, how wise is it to go down a "it would be nice if the world were free of nuclear weapons" path with the how the world really is?

KAGAN: ANTI-MILITARY

2009-02-10T10:58:00.003-05:00

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) warned last week that Obama planned to turn the department into a "liberal bastion" and pointed out that the sole Supreme Court amicus brief that the 48-year-old Kagan has signed was one challenging the Solomon Amendment, which required universities that received federal funding to cooperate with military recruiters on campus.

That is right...the possible path to put someone high up in Government, possibly the top court of the land, that would not just encourage the following "events" but most likely take part.

The following Op-Ed appeared in the NYT...

February 9, 2009

Op-Ed Contributor

Send R.O.T.C. Back to School

By KENNETH HARBAUGH

New Haven

SINCE the Vietnam War, R.O.T.C. programs have been banned from operating on campus at elite universities like Yale and Harvard. These institutions have also long hindered the military’s efforts to recruit their students. But in March 2006, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the military must be allowed back on all campuses. The door is open. More important, the students themselves are ready.

I recently taught a course on the obligations of citizenship at Yale, where I also spent three years as a law student. If my university holds some prejudice against military service, its students, in my experience, don’t seem to.

The student-run Yale Political Union recently approved a resolution to invite R.O.T.C. back on campus. Several pro-military organizations have sprung up, including the Semper Fi Society, which helps undergraduates become Marine Corps officers.

While it is true that few of the students I taught will ever serve in uniform, part of the reason is that no one has bothered to ask them to. To change that, our new commander in chief should order the military to activate new R.O.T.C. units. Then President Obama should direct it to step up in-person recruiting efforts on these campuses.

TV commercials showing marines scaling mountains will not work on Yale students. But programs like Teach for America have great success recruiting from Ivy League colleges, because their recruiters are given time at the end of large lectures to deliver their pitch.

If the military demands similar access, students will respond. Imagine asking a 21-year-old: “How would you like to go somewhere where you are the only person who is capable of helping?” My students were desperate to serve their country in some way. We owe it to them to offer the armed forces as a realistic option.

But rebuilding a connection between America’s military and its most selective colleges is about more than providing exceptional opportunities to exceptional young people. It is, ultimately, about our military’s relationship to its civilian leaders.

At Yale, which has supplied more than its share of senators and presidents, almost none of my former classmates or students ever noticed the absence of uniforms on campus. In a nation at war, this is a disgrace. But it also shows how dangerously out of touch the elites who shape our national policy have become with the men and women they send to war.

Whenever I encounter animus toward the military at Yale, it is almost always born of ignorance. Students often cite the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military as a justification for the ban on R.O.T.C. They are far more sympathetic when I explain that such policies are enacted by Congress, and that the military has no choice but to comply.

Toward the end of the semester, I took my class to West Point. None of my students had ever seen a military base, and only one had a friend his age in uniform. But every one of them was deeply respectful of what they saw. My students understood that many of the cadets they met would soon be at war. And without my saying it, they also knew that the decisions leading to war are made by elite civilians like themselves.

As a candidate, Barack Obama called top colleges’ rejection of the military a “mistake.” As president, he can begin to correct that mistake by ordering the military to invest in new R.O.T.C. units and redouble campus recruiting efforts.

The door is finally open, but it is up to our commander in chief to lead us through.
Kenneth Harbaugh, a former Navy pilot, is the executive director of the Center for Citizen Leadership.

So the question remains: once Candidate Obama, now President Obama, wanted ROTC on campus. Will he make good on that? Well Placing Kagan ANYWHERE in his Administration is anything but a good step. It is a disgrace and spit in the face of our military during a time of war.

Tony Snow a Year Later.

2009-02-09T00:00:00.000-05:00

Above is one of, if not my favorite photo of Mr. Snow. Below is a speech he made a year ago at CPAC.

Former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow

Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, D.C.

February 9, 2008

Thank you for letting me wrap up this extraordinary conference.

Friends, I come not to bury conservatism, but to praise it. Not just praise, but to fire up. The world needs us, and we need to let everybody know that we’re not about to fold our tents. We’re not about to go slinking off into the sunset. And we’re not about to walk back from the high ideals and grand accomplishments we have achieved over the last generation. So to doubters, to the disconsolate, and especially to the Democrats, pass the word: We have just begun to fight!

Every political movement experiences moments of triumph and testing. We have spent a good portion of the last couple of years fighting each other. Now, we need to roll up our sleeves. We’ve got work to do and we need to do it as a team.

Some commentators act as if the curtain is closing on conservatism. They wish. The curtain merely has fallen on the first act – you know, the part where we defeated communism and brought freedom to hundreds of millions formerly held captive. Now, we’re on the verge of Act Two, which is to extend the blessings of liberty to places now oppressed by fanaticism and terror … and to continue the project of fulfilling our founders’ project of forming an ever more-perfect union. The conservative movement isn’t going toes up. We’re just getting started. So lace ‘em up friends. Our lives are going to get more interesting and more exciting. We have a calling.

As we go into a bruising election year, let’s remember the Eleventh Commandment. No candidate is perfect. No party is perfect. People say they’re going to boycott an election because they don’t like John McCain, or will switch sides in protest. Well, OK.

But before you do, let me suggest an alternative. Why not join together to revise and revive our revolutionary agenda? It’s not as if conservatives haven’t influenced policy in the last couple of years. You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don’t be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer. You want to win in November? Then count your blessings, speak out for what you believe, and tell everyone you know that there will be two choices on Election Day and only one of them will be good.

This may be a time of testing. But it’s not our swan song. Not by a long shot.

Instead… this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best – turn adversity into strength.

When the economy is under siege, who you gonna call?

Conservatives.

When terrorists test our defenses and try to weaken our will, who can you gonna call?

Conservatives.

When elites bend, fold, spindle and mutilate our most cherished values, who you gonna call?

Conservatives.

And when you need optimism based on a deep faith in the goodness, decency and ability of each and every American citizen, who you gonna call?

Hillary Clinton?

Barack Obama?

You know…

With all the tests before us, this is our moment, our time to address the big and important issues: national security, economic liberty, the sanctity of life. We can help a torn and wounded world, not because of our might, but because of our decency.

You know the core message. We are carriers of freedom. To be a conservative is to believe in limited government and the unlimited capabilities of free people.

You also know the topline issues:

Cut taxes.

Don’t spend other people’s money as if it were other people’s money. Get rid of sneaky earmarks. I’m tired of hearing Republican lawmakers defend projects that got slipped into the budget in secret. That’s not constituent service. That’s not conservatism. That’s corruption.

Get rid of programs that aren’t essential for keeping us strong and free.

Get innovative. Set our creative geniuses loose on retirement security, on health care for seniors – on health care, period. Create a system where companies compete furiously to give us what we want – I repeat: What we want – at the best price possible. Reward those who put us first, our needs first, our concerns first. You think about it this way, and you’ll realize: Conservatism is compassion.

Fight for judges who believe in preserving constitutional principles, not tossing them in the trash.

Project confidence on the global stage. Rebuff defeatists. Protectionists, isolationists, nativists and pessimists are afraid. They don’t think we can cut it in the global economy – and want us to hide. Keep pushing for free and fair trade. And show everyone that when it comes to competition, we’re still Number One. We won’t finish second to anybody.

Tackle the tough stuff using conservative principles. Here’s a conservative way forward – broad principles only.

Create sovereign and secure borders.

Identify non-citizens, and keep track with a fraud-proof ID.

Restore the rule of law, with clear laws and strong, predictable enforcement.

Restore majesty to citizenship: Make clear that it’s not a party favor, but something you earn. Every new American should speak the language and understand the culture.

No Amnesty. And no retreat from our proud tradition as a nation of immigrants.

Conservatives have had a huge influence in this debate, and have a huge stake in the outcome. We can solve this mess in a way that keeps us strong and secure, and welcomes into the family people who have proven that they will make great Americans. So let’s fix the problem together, and fix it right.

Now, let’s focus on a big difference between liberals and conservatives. Those on the left say we’re in dire straits. Huh? Dire is Jimmy Carter smugly informing Americans that we couldn’t stop the march of communism. Dire is a land pockmarked by bread lines and dried up riverbeds. Dire is a country run according to the blueprints offered this year by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Conventional wisdom declares that the last seven years constitute a long sad tale of failure. History will remember it as one of our finest hours.

Seven years ago, this country was mired in a recession left behind by the Clinton administration. George W. Bush had just taken the oath of office. Since then, we’ve taken the hardest hits the world had to offer. 9/11. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Corporate scandals. The costliest natural disaster in history – Hurricane Katrina. $100 oil. The subprime lending mess. If I had told you in 2001 that we would have absorbed such blows, you would have predicted disaster and despair.

And you would have bet wrong. The last seven years proved that leadership counts. President Bush and a Republican Congress cut taxes we got 52 consecutive months of job growth – an all time record that apparently came to an end last month. The economy has expanded without interruption for 6-1/2 years. More people own homes than ever before. More people are working than ever before. They’re making more than ever before. Kids are doing better in school. More Americans attend college than at any point in our history. The gap between rich and poor has narrowed because more people are making more money. The crime rate is down across the board. Youth crime down. Youth drug use down. Youth alcohol abuse down. Crime and drug abuse down across the board. Teen pregnancy rates down. Abortion rates down. Divorce rates down. If you’re an environmentalist, vote Republican: thanks to free-market approaches, our air is cleaner, and we’re doing better than any other industrialized economy.

You know why Democrats want to describe these things as failures? Because they refused to help.

They’re celebrating not because they have accomplished anything, but because they prevented us from accomplishing things. They stonewalled on economic recovery. They’re blocking legislation that lets our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies keep tabs on terrorists. They have trashed many decent people – right up to the Vice President and President. The good news is: They failed. The economy improved without them. The surge moved without them. And we’re moving forward as a country despite their efforts to stand in the way.

It’s easy to forget amid all the gloomy talk that we live in thrilling times, exploding with inventive energy. I’ll bet just about everyone in this room has a cell phone or PDA that all by itself has more memory, speed and computational power than all the computers on all the Apollo flights that took Americans to the moon and back.

The world is rocketing forward. Thinkers and innovators produce gushers of new information each year – the equivalent of 17,000 libraries of Congress…. 630 billion volumes. Your kids have their own web pages. They’re texting and IM-ing and communicating constantly. I get home some days, and my kids are in front of the TV, jumping around on dance mats, or whamming away at plastic replica guitars, saying, “Come on, Dad. You try.” And when I do, I realize that my mind moves at about one-tenth of the speed theirs do. And my feet and hands, about one-hundredth. I’m old and I’m white and there’s nothing I can do about it! But if you doubt the steepness of our innovative curve, just look at your kids’ Christmas lists – or your own.

All around, we’re exploring new frontiers. You have before you a stage 4 cancer patient, hale and chipper. Doctors have at their disposal today a bunch of treatments for my disease that they didn’t have just 10 months ago. And when we’re not working, we’re hurling ourselves into the world in other ways – hiking mountains, volunteering at a food bank or church, playing music – all to make our lives more interesting and fulfilling.

That’s dire?!

One year ago, the President ordered the surge. Harry Reid declared it a failure – heck, he said we had lost the war – before the troops were even in place. You see a theme emerging?

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate sent a letter demanding that our troops leave – because for many Democrats, retreat was more desirable than victory. We know the story: A conservative president, George W. Bush made a tough call at a time of crisis – and the world is a better place.

Stadium Lights on, and legislated waste of IC time.

2009-02-08T15:24:00.003-05:00

I for one, and I may be alone, cannot stand this desire for everything to be available to the public. The intelligence community gets it's job done not just with more ease but better and more success in the dark. But the Democrat controlled congress, and possibly in the future Democrat executive will sign off on H.R. 553.

SEC. 210F. OVER-CLASSIFICATION PREVENTION PROGRAM goes on to describe that we just cannot have so much secrecy.

(2) require that all finished intelligence products created by the Department be simultaneously prepared in the standard unclassified format, provided that such an unclassified product would reasonably be expected to be of any benefit to a State, local, tribal or territorial government, law enforcement agency or other emergency response provider, or the private sector, based on input provided by the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group Detail established under section 210D;

Here you have Congresswoman demanding that BOTH versions be created, before it is even determined if the information will ever be released! It is understandable to fight and make sure law enforcement or emergency responders have the needed (but only needed) information. The main concern I have is "private sector." You have an added pressure of getting the IC to create two documents at once, the one actually needed to protect the country. Yet, at the same time create the FOIA version so those "aliens at Area 51" people can snoop around.

We are under attack and the IC is busy. Why would Congress want them using any man power on creating, as I mentioned, a document that may never be released...but also is sitting around to just accidently land on a journaliats lap?

Please refer back to one of my original posts The Primary Problem Between the Press and Military from 3 years ago.

Happy Birthday President Reagan.

2009-02-06T11:50:00.004-05:00

A Salute to the Gipper
[This was a piece done in 2006 at http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/, I copied it in its entirety so please direct any and all compliments to Mike!]

It must be the dream of every political junkie to work in the White House for a president they respect and it was doubly so for me when I joined the Reagan White House Political Office during the presidential election season of 1988.

Our primary goal was to make sure that George H. Bush and other Republicans would be elected to carry forward the great work that President Reagan had achieved the last eight years.

The days started at 8 a.m. with a meeting of the political staff to discuss the president's election activity across the country. One of my jobs was to develop letters of support for candidates the president particularly endorsed, have the president sign them and allow the candidate to use them to demonstrate his credentials as part of "the Reagan Revolution" to the voters in his state or district.

Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, was among those I worked with as he conducted a congressional campaign in Texas.

There were many long hours and very detail-oriented work. One thing I picked up quickly is that at the White House you had to do it right and you had to do it right now. There was no time for mistakes or dithering.

Later, when I moved to the Environmental Protection Agency, I learned a new work ethic, one more politically correct. At EPA, it was thought too harsh to say what was right lest you offend someone and, frankly, you were discouraged from getting anything done too quickly which might discomfit your coworkers.

When I wasn't over occupied with work duties during that busy time, I was encouraged to attend many of the public events at the White House.

Staff and guests would be welcome to assemble on the White House lawn and watch as Marine One, the president's helicopter, took him on a trip. We would stand and wave while the nearby press, mostly Sam Donaldson of ABC, would shout questions at the president.

Larger ceremonies, such as the one to congratulate our 1988 Olympic team, were also frequent.

Street vendors in Washington used to pose tourists with a life-size cardboard photo of the president as a souvenir. In a lighter moment, Sen. Bob Dole, hosting a presidential event at a nearby hotel, brought along a cardboard Reagan and our staff had fun posing with the senator and the cardboard president.

Later, as I had a photograph taken with the real McCoy, I joked to the president, "I hope this comes out better than the one with the cardboard cutout." He laughed. But that wasn't surprising. His good humor was legendary and nearly every photograph taken of him over the years shows him laughing or smiling.

The Last State Visit with Margaret Thatcher

An event with deeper inter- national and political signif- icance was the final state visit of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to the White House on Nov. 16, 1988. As the flags of the United Kingdom and the United States flew proudly from the lampposts up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, military bands and honor guards assembled to welcome one of America's greatest friends. But there was more to the arrival of Mrs. Thatcher than the pomp and ceremony of a state visit. Her friendship and partnership with President Reagan was nothing short of a political love story. The affection and respect these two historic figures held for each other was palpable in person. In the photograph I took on that occasion, you clearly see the admiration in the eyes of the president and the warmth of Mrs. Thatcher. It was a rare moment which crystallized for me the goodness of the man and the strength of personal friendship he had with one of America's greatest friends. President Reagan visits Bowling Green, Ohio, October 19, 1988. Speech here. Check out the full size photo here.

Perhaps the most important personal accomplishment for me was the political trip I coordinated for the president's visit to my hometown, Bowling Green, Ohio.

Always a key state for Republicans, it was a thrill and an honor to return home to coordinate the details, invite guests and VIP's and make suggestions for the speech Mr. Reagan would deliver.

The morning after the presidential election, President Reagan summoned the White House staff into the Rose Garden to say "thank you" for all the hard work and long hours we had put in to assure the election of his successor, George H.W. Bush.

It had been a long night in the Political Office as we tabulated the results and fed them to senior White House staff. That morning, at the conclusion of his remarks, I recalled that days before he had asked us to "win one more for the Gipper," referring to his favorite movie role as legendary football player George Gipp.

As the president turned toward the Oval Office I had a Sam Donaldson moment and blurted out, "That was one for the Gipper."He turned and came back to the microphone and proceeded to regale us all with another of those classic Gipper stories that he was so famous for.

Waving Goodbye Over U.S. Capitol After Bush '41' Swearing Infull size image here White House Photo I said goodbye to Ronald Reagan as I stood on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol just after President Bush was sworn in as his successor.The helicopter bearing Ron and Nancy Reagan rose above the Capitol plaza and stately trees. As the helicopter circled directly above me, I stood beneath the trees on the lawn of the Capitol, saluted and reflected on the courage, decency and honor of this great man and all he accomplished. I do so again. Thank you, Mr. President, and God bless you.

Thanks Mike (http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/) for a wonderful story with up-beat and helpful messages on the success of a good man! Sadly there are people out there that as much as they wish to tout a bipartisan, or simply "helpful" message they fall back to a destructive nature and obviously false conclusion.

Less military funding?

2009-02-05T13:13:00.005-05:00

This post comes on the heels of President Obama not providing the DoD with the requested funding. I am someone that always wants MORE military funding, but of course the left is against military funding...no not all of it, just that added bit that makes us BETTER than any other military (we would not want an added advantage). Missile Defense, too advanced and worthy (historically democrats in congress vote against requested funding of missile defense). Stealth, too advanced. I think they are for funding rifle rounds and that is it.

Never was a big fan of Ed Morrissey, but he recently wrote a terrific piece that does not just point out a need for development but also a stimulus that yes... I, a conservative republican, would sign off on.

If the Obama administration wants government to provide a real economic stimulus while benefiting taxpayers, defense infrastructure would certainly help in both jobs and in actual defense. The F-22A Raptor seems to qualify on both counts. The program employs 95,000 people, has over a thousand suppliers, and its advocates estimate its impact on the economy at $12 billion.

Would not that be a bipartisan plan? National security freaks like myself, and most readers at CIR would be supportive of the Defense spending. The liberals that want to throw money at the problem to save jobs, well they get that! Bam, bipartisan... ok someone run the plan up to the Hill. And in addition this "plan" would also seem to have support from certain members of Congress based on a GAO report. TheHill.com reports on a requested study that resulted in a worrisome conclusion. At the same time, it's one of the first times anyone in Government outside the USAF has promoted increase of advanced weapons since the Cold War. I am concerned but at the same time hopeful that this information will encourage a push for further purchase of Raptors.

The Air Force may face severe aircraft and personnel shortfalls in the near future that could present significant challenges to its ability to protect domestic airspace, a government watchdog agency has found.
The little-publicized findings by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will likely stir a tug-of-war between the Air Force and a number of factions in Congress over whether the Air Force should buy cutting-edge — but expensive — fighter jets, such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or continue buying and modernizing older aircraft, such as F-15s or F-16s.

This is a great chance people! Let the dems spend OUR money on Stimulus, and we get what we would like our money spent on: NATIONAL DEFENSE. The task truly charged of the US Government by the United States Constitution. We can do all that and make both dems and repubs happy by saving jobs!

One option is to replace the F-16s with either F-22s or F-35s, both of which the Air Force is acquiring. However, according to the current F-22 and F-35 fielding schedules, only one of the units — Shaw Air Force Base — will receive the new aircraft soon enough, according to the GAO.

So the question remains:

WILL THE LEFT IN CONGRESS AND EXECUTIVE LISTEN TO THE USAF AND GAO REGARDING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY???

[Conservative Intelligence Report]

Watch "33 Minutes" online....

20100911

Sergeant of the Guard's last walk

This world (and beyond) is just no fun!

Commanders do not allow sexual intercourse on the International Space Station, it has been disclosed.

Petraeus May Need a New Team in Afghanistan, Senators Say

Stay tuned...

9/11

White House wants to cyber stalk you.

Best Red Eye Interview!

MAF Troopathon

I take issue.... (language warning)

What Scoop Jackson knew...

June 6th -- 1944, 1984, 2009

D-Day

Klingner on DPRK

GTMO, detainees, terrorists, and Geneva

The REAL terrorist recruitment tool, the American LEFT and PRESS!

MEMORIAL DAY Evening Post

MEMORIAL DAY

President Barack Hussein Obama politicizes Memorial Day.

Flags In

Ingraham DESTROYS Obama's "National Security" speech.

VPOTUS Cheney Schools potus

Red Eye Host Greg Gutfeld on Media Bias, Liberal Intolerance...

Creator of POW/MIA Flag pases away.

Political left, deaf on National Security

Matthews BLOWS. A WTF moment.

Murtha. UGH

Piece of the week.: Andrew C. McCarthy

Obama politicizing National Security

GTMO WORKS, lefties get over it!

What does a bell, water, and death have in common.

Pelosi: What and when. Oh snap!

The Detainees -- 9/11

Support for "torture" grows on both sides of the aisle.

Carafano on Free Speech

Obama, an enemy of the state?

WAS THE NYC FLYOVER RACIALLY MOTIVATED?

SPECTER : Because........

History on Obama's 100th day.

Get rid of the USAF, retort.

Erik Kristensen Eye Street Klassic

GENEVA

The Clear and Present Danger to our Country

Congress Knew About the Interrogations

Feel Safe?

Obama's Comedy tour...funny stuff!

Why Obama could never be a Marine.

OHHHHHH-bama

Pony up Obama!!!!

Make what you will, will makers...

Happy Easter!!!

USSR is right on principle.*

Congressional Black Caucus: "Useful Idiots."

Public access for hero arrival...

SECDEF Gates drops the axes... (UPDATED)

Krauthammer, on the ball re: DPRK, Obama, the UN

Congratulations to Charles Krauthammer!

Missile defense, DPRK, "Change."

Missile defense, now is the time!

Military does a good job, gets slapped.

Collapse, may take missile defense with it.

Open For Questions. (UPDATED)

Dreams of history coming true.

Umm... *speechless* (vulgar rant)

The one and only AIG post I will do. (UPDATED)

How much does the left hate the military?

Missile Defense is un-proven?

POLL: Vice President Cheney

I TOLD YOU SO

Education Reduces Stigma Facing Redeployed Soldiers

Pelosi abusing a privlege and the military, at once (UPDATED)

DHS aka: Free ATM

Trust enemies, Deny, and non-transparency.

Truth Commission? (UPDATED)

Sippican Cottage: My Father Asks For Nothing

Poll (not) heard 'round the world!

Troops opine.

Umm... speechless (vulgar rant)

Obama's Missile Test
FEBRUARY 9, 2009, 11:30 A.M. ET