Category Archives: National Security

It’s Monday!

Posted on by

Urg!

That was my usual response before I retired. I was fortunate during my last working years to be able to work from home. I told people my morning commute was thirty steps downstairs to my home office. After I retired, I continued most of those habits…writing this blog being one.

Last Friday, I wrote a post about the apparent downward spiral to war in Eastern Europe. It is arguable whether the Ukraine is European. My definition is that all of the territory west of the Ural and the ‘stans, are European, if only by religion and heritage. The major religions are the Catholic varieties—Roman, Greek and Russ ion Orthodox. Those areas mark the furthest extent of the Turkish/Islamic advance of the 16th and 17th Century.

But Eastern Europe is not the only area where war warnings exist. WesPac is a potential point of conflict as well. Finally, someone in the Pentagon and Washington is looking westward instead of eastward.

Amid Chinese Aggression, Obama Affirms U.S. Defense of Japan’s Senkaku Islands

April 24, 2014 at 3:49 pm

During his trip to Japan, President Obama publicly affirmed long-standing U.S. policy that the bilateral security treaty applies to the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands. China claims sovereignty over the islands and, in recent years, has tried to intimidate Japan—much as Beijing has bullied the Philippines in pursuit of its extralegal territorial claims in the South China Sea.

President Obama’s statement was a welcome and proper confirmation of U.S. support for a critical Pacific ally.

During a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Obama declared, “let me reiterate that our treaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute, and Article 5 [of the bilateral security treaty] covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands.”

While this was the first time Obama publicly affirmed the parameters of the U.S. defense commitment to Japan, it is consistent with the long-standing policies of his predecessors. As Obama pointed out, “this isn’t a ‘red line’ that I’m drawing; it is the standard interpretation over multiple administrations of the terms of the alliance…There’s no shift in position. There’s no “red line” that’s been drawn. We’re simply applying the treaty.”

In 2004, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage stated that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty “would require any attack on Japan, or the administrative territories under Japanese control, to be seen as an attack on the United States.”

During a 2010 flare-up of tensions between China and Japan over the Senkakus, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, “we have made it very clear that the [Senkaku] islands are part of our mutual treaty obligations, and the obligation to defend Japan

The Obama administration’s public reassurance to Japan is meant to deter China from behaving aggressively. In recent years, Beijing has used military and economic threats, bombastic language, and enforcement through military bullying to extend its extra-legal claims of sovereignty in the East and South China Seas.

In November 2013, China declared an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea, including the Senkaku Islands. Beijing threatened to use its military to enforce the ADIZ. Washington condemned this declaration as a provocative act that exacerbated tensions in the region and increased the risks of a military clash.

Beijing is also attempting to divert attention from its own actions by mischaracterizing Japan as a threat to regional security. China’s bellicose actions have fueled regional concern and triggered a greater Japanese willingness confront Chinese expansionism and strengthen its military. This willingness to defend its territory has been mischaracterized as a resurgence of Japan’s 1930s imperial militarism.

One of Japan’s problems isn’t with Chinese aggression. Their problem is toothless assurances from the United States when a significant portion of the US Naval Fleet…is along dockside, awaiting repairs, upgrades, or lacking the funding to return to the fleet.

According to sources, there are 430 ships believed to be in active service. That includes ships under construction and in reserve. The majority of these ships were built in the late 20th Century, some dating as far back as the 1960s. The Fleet is aging.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) — Norfolk Naval Yard, December 2012.

During the Bush years, we had twelve carriers afloat, each carrier being the center of a battlegroup. That number has been reduced to ten. The photo to the left, taken over the Christmas and New Years holidays in 2012. Reduced those battlegroups on the high seas, from ten to five for a short period.

With those ship’s crews on leave for the holidays, how quickly could they have responded if the Chinese chose to ignore the treaty between Japan and the US? My guess would be a month to retrieve the crews, top off consumables and sail to the trouble area.

Does Obama’s, Kerry’s and Hillery’s statements affirming that US/Japanese alliance hold water? I don’t know. The question really is, does the Chinese believe it does.

***

Clive Bundy is in the news again. He stepped in it, big time. He had an interview with a reporter from the New York Times. The NYT did it’s usual hatchet-job, taking Bundy’s words out of context, changing the order, doing their usual job putting Bundy in the worse light possible. The MSM took it an ran with it.

In the end, Bundy did say those things. However his statements does not change the facts about the BLM’s aggression and overt attempts of land grabbing.

In response to the NYT interview, this column appeared in The American Thinker.

Why It’s Okay to Hate Cliven Bundy

By J.R. Dunn, April 28, 2014

It has become clear that Cliven Bundy was transgressed by the New York Times, his words taken out of context and retailed in such a way as to mean something they were not. Bundy is no racist, and the attempt to make him look like one is another step downward in the collapse of American national media.

But conservatives still have a right — in fact, a responsibility — to be annoyed with Bundy.

To wit: Bundy did not walk, not stumble, did not swerve into the trap set by the New York Times.  He was not ambushed, he was not taken by surprise. He instead ran full tilt and threw himself into that trap, exactly like the kid at the end of Million Dollar Hotel.

Bundy sat across from a reporter for the NYT, the most vicious, calculating, untrustworthy, and dishonest nest of vipers in the entire U.S. media network, and talked straight to him about matters of import and controversy, under the impression that he would understand and transmit his thoughts the way that he actually expressed them.

Nobody, a full century into the progressive era, seventy years into the epoch of big government, and fifty years after the mass media turned anti-American as a matter of course, has any right to do this. Nobody has a right to be that stupid, to be that ill-informed, or to be that self-centered.

Granted that Bundy, a lifetime Nevada rancher, is not the epitome of sophistication. He is not the typical Times reader, even for Nevada. He may well have never held a copy of the paper in his hands, much less read it. But that’s no excuse, because the status and nature of the New York Times has become a truism of American political culture. It is the bastion of left-wing thought in the media, the source from which everyone else takes their cue. In conservative circles, it’s what amounts to a punchline.

Bundy must have heard of this, at least vaguely. And yet he went out, and kindly loaded up Adam Nagourney’s pistol for him, then turned around, took his hat off, and waited for the bullet. The living portrait of middle-American conservatism in the 21st century.

How many times does this have to happen? How many Todd Akins do we need giving bizarre lectures on female biology exactly as if he knew what he was talking about? How many O’Donnells do we need providing ammunition to Bill Maher? How many Mourdocks? Even Sarah Palin, one of smartest political figures we’ve got, fell for this her first time out. (Granted, she was given plenty of help by McCain’s staff.)

I have been interviewed by newspaper reporters several dozen times in my various careers in business, writing, and conservative politics. How many times was I quoted correctly? Not once. Not a single time. Reporters typically mangle quotes, misunderstand what you’re saying, shift contexts, or deliberately rearrange statements to make them work the way they want. (And there’s nothing you can do about this. Once you speak to a reporter, what you have said is the newspaper’s property.  That’s right. Your words no longer belong to you — according to their interpretation. Your statement is theirs, to do with as they see fit, with no input from you, the schmuck who merely spoke the words. Of course, there’s no legal backing for this whatsoever. But there’s no legal backing for airline baggage handlers destroying expensive musical instruments. Yet they still get away with it.) The first time you see this it’s annoying. The second time it’s infuriating. The third time it’s expected.

Why do they do this? Not necessarily out of maliciousness or stupidity. (Though  that’s true often enough.) It’s the culture. The idea that newspapers are there to print “facts,” Who-what-where -when-and-why, is mythology gone with Jimmy Olsen and His Gal Friday. Today, reporters work with certain formats, to which they are expected to fit any related story.  One such concept is “every conservative is a hate-filled, fanatic Neanderthal.”  A corollary of this is “All Nevada ranchers are demented racists.”

Papers higher on the food chain, along with magazines and broadcast and cable networks, have agendas which these stereotypical patterns are used to support. I doubt I need to detail the nature of these agendas.

From these realities certain rules can be derived.

1) These people are not on your side.

2) Anything you say can and will be used against you.

3) Nothing you say will ever be used to support your position (or any conservative position at all.)

So what can we do in this situation? A friend of mine long experienced in public relations puts it very simply: you tell them exactly what you want them to say in the exact words that you want them to say it with. No ambiguity, no complications, no diversions. Then you stop. You don’t say any more. You add nothing. You don’t answer their questions. Their questions are not intended to shed light on your ideas or to develop detail. They are meant to trip you up and that is all. Anybody who acts as if they are truly interested in what you think about them there Negroes or legitimate rape is speaking as the enemy. You don’t feed them. You don’t hand them the weapon to strike you down with. You say “good afternoon” and turn on your heel.

The article continues at the website. It is a lesson to be learned. The media are not our friends, regardless of the medium and the reputation of the reporter. You are always on record and the media, like rapacious piranha, are waiting to feed upon you.

Politicians and candidates take note. Be careful what you say. If you are a conservative, the bottom-feeders are waiting for you to make a mistake or to misspeak.

Facebook

Preliminaries to 2016

Posted on by

I hadn’t intended to write about this subject, but…it…it just irritated me. If you’ve read any of my postings during the past election, you’ll find I’m no fan of Ron Paul. The labels of being an isolationist was earned. When it comes to national security, the best I can say about Ron Paul is that he’s naive to extremes.

That does not necessarily extend to his son, Rand Paul. I’ve been watching him. While Rand Paul has made his own errors in policy, he’s not gone to the extremes as has his father.

The article posted below, purported about Representative Peter King and a run for President in 2016, paints both Pauls, and Ted Cruz, with the same brush. In essence, it’s the opening shots of the next Presidential election.

Rep. Peter King aims to save GOP from Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz

By Ben Wolfgang – The Washington Times, Friday, July 19, 2013

If he ultimately decides to run for president in 2016, Rep. Peter King will do it for one reason: to save the Republican party from the “isolationist” policies of Sen. Rand Paul and others.

“It bothers me when the leading Republicans out there — someone like Rand Paul seems more concerned about an American being killed in Starbucks by a CIA drone than he is about Islamic terrorism,” said Mr. King, New York Republican, during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “We are the party of Eisenhower and Reagan, which believes in a strong national defense. I’m willing to be out there and be a spokesman.”

Mr. King said he’s being encouraged to run for the Republican nomination for president because of his strong positions on national security.

While the race is still three years away, it’s widely assumed that Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ted Cruz also will seek the GOP nomination, and Mr. King believes the two freshman senators simply don’t represent true Republican views on national defense and security, Mr. King said.

“A number of people in the last several months, particularly in New York but also from around the country, were concerned about the lack of a real defense policy and a real defense debate among Republican candidates for president, focusing primarily on Rand Paul and Ted Cruz,” Mr. King said. “We have real national security issues. … We can’t have an isolationist trend, which I think is being pursued by Rand Paul.”

Peter King, like all to many members of the ‘Pub establishment, can’t tell the difference between external national security and internal federal tyranny. The more I read about this topic, and other quotes from King, Boehner, and the ‘Pubs in Washington, the more I believe they’re trying to find something to be a campaign issue against conservatives. The fact they’ve accused Ted Cruz with Rand Paul is telling.

To paraphrase Peter King, no one should be concerned about the CIA targeting Americans anywhere in the world—if it is for ‘national security.’ Domestic surveillance is the same as surveillance outside the US. It’s all about subversives and terrorists.

No, Mr. King, it is not. We have a document called the Constitution. It has an amendment, the 4th one, that protects citizens from intrusion by government. We only need to watch the police riot in Boston, turning people out of their homes without warrants, to see what can happen when that Amendment is ignored. The incident just brought to light in Nevada is also pertinent. That last one is a possible violation of the 3rd Amendment. It is certainly a violation of due process.

That does not mean Americans cannot be targeted outside of the US while actively committing treason. There should be, and is, I believe, existing procedures to provide due process in those cases. It does not mean, however, that we should give free rein to any federal agency, inside or outside of the US, to target US citizens for any reason—or, as it is appearing more often, for no reason that can be supported.

I fully support the use of drones to maintain our border security, to interdict illegal drug smuggling on land or at sea. I would even support some domestic use of drones—providing that use follows the issuance of a valid search or other warrant. I approve domestic use of drones as long as the use follows the due process provisions in our Constitution.

The establishment and Peter King seem to think such things as warrants and due process to be ‘flexible’ if circumstances warrant. I do not.

If this is to be a nation of laws, it cannot waive or ignore law at any level. To do so invalidates the primary premise. If warrants are deemed unnecessary, due to circumstances, the country is not, then, a nation of laws. It is whatever the governmental elites want it to be. A lawless tyranny.

Facebook

Surveillance

Posted on by

(Update: Audio recordings of the Cass County Commission meetings are available through the County Clerk’s office.)

Surveillance.

sur·veil·lance  

/sərˈvāləns/
Noun: Close observation, esp. of a suspected spy or criminal.
Synonyms: supervision – superintendence – oversight – control

 

A FB friend posted a link to the column in the UK Guardian about Verizon being ordered to send customer call data to the NSA. I saw a copy of what was purported to be the court order last night. It was four pages and was, to the best of my memory, identical to the one all communication carriers received around 2003 after the Patriot Act was passed.

The order we received back then was a preparatory order to allow the carriers time to put in place methods to retrieve Call Detail Records (CDRs) when requested by the FedGov. My area of the company created CDRs for specialty call centers used to help the deaf and hard-of-hearing communicate with hearing folks. The call centers were used for mundane things such as ordering pizza, making appointments, etc.

The processes we added were basically search engines. When we were given a telephone number and other criteria, such as receiving an international call or making one, making a call to, receiving a call from a specific number, we would extract the CDR for those calls and send them on to our legal department who interacted with the appropriate FedGov department.

In the following years, I can remember being requested to provide CDRs twice. In both cases, I was told, one of the parties were being investigated for some criminal act. I never really knew the details.

The bottom line is that we were never ordered to send Call Detail Records en mass, without some filtering, and then only for specific numbers. The supposed court order I read last night seemed to be worded the same as the one I read back around 2003.

That call detail records for specific numbers are being sent to the FedGov under court order is a fact. It’s governed by FISA, as amended in 2008. However, in this era of pseudo-journalism, is this “new” report, a change? That’s the real question.

We see so many reports today on Facebook and other social media sites, from various news websites and many stretch credibility. Many, very many, are subsequently proven to be false, complete fiction. However, the initial report frequently becomes viral, spreading throughout the internet. Everyone sees it. Few, however, never see the followup that proves the initial report false. Many who read the first report and pass it on, unfortunately, never send the correction—nor care, if it is contrary to their ideology.

When I see reports such as these, I try to perform my own due diligence. I read several reports on the subject, read, if possible, the original source documents and do my best to evaluate the validity of the report. I often find the initial report to be true. Just as often, unfortunately, I find the original report to be questionable or false.

This particular report about Verizon, has not, yet, passed my smell test. Without further confirmation, it stinks a bit. Why? The supposed order I read on the internet (link to it above,) has no date other than an expiration date in the body of the text. It appears to be a photo-copy. It has no classification stamps as I would expect and the document itself declares.

When I still had access to classified documents, every page was stamped, not just the cover-sheet. Classified documents had a specific form and format. If the copy being shown on the internet is a true photocopy, I would expect to see classification stamps on every page. That, and some other indicators, make me doubt its authenticity. It may be incomplete, or have been altered. I don’t know.

You, however, must decide on your own. Me? I’m waiting for more information. What I’ve seen so far, is lacking credibility.

Facebook

George McGovern—then and now

Posted on by

I haven’t heard much about this on the broadcast and print news…George McGovern died. Many of the younger folk won’t know who he was. He was the socialist…democrat candidate for President in 1972 running against Nixon. Nixon was up for his second term after beating Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

He was beaten by Nixon in a landslide. The democrats blamed the fiasco over VP candidate Senator Thomas Eagleton (D-MO). The real reason was not Eagleton’s issues, but the fact that McGovern wanted to appease the Russians and the North Vietnamese. His plan would be an effective disassembly of our military—cutting it in half in the case of the Navy and Air Force. The plan would be a withdrawal of the US forces opposing the Soviet Union, Communist China and the other dictatorships in eastern Europe and around the world.

I remember seeing a chart in Time magazine with the comparative size of our military compared to the Soviets before and after McGovern. It’s my belief that chart destroyed McGovern’s chances for the Presidency.

The before chart was bad. The US Army was 1/4th the size of the Soviet army, The long-range US Air Force bombers was on par with the Soviets. But it was our Navy—a true three ocean Navy that outclassed the Soviets. Except for submarines. There, we had a clear advantage in nuclear subs. The Soviets had many more diesel-electric subs that we did. In fact, at that time, most US diesel-subs were being decommissioned.

The after McGovern chart was horrible. The ground forces situation was worse. The US bomber force was cut in half as well as our land-based ICBMs. The Navy was reduced to nine fleets, if I remember correctly, and the Navy ballistic subs were cut as well. All this at a time the Soviets were pushing all around the world.

McGovern lost handily as he deserved.

Now that you’ve had a history lesson, compare McGovern’s plan with Obama’s. Our armed forces are in disarray and demoralized. The Navy is smaller than our Navy before WW I. We no longer have a long range bomber force. Most of our remaining long-range bombers—the B-52s and B-1bs have been converted to carry conventional bombs. Only a few remain in their original nuclear configuration. Few, if any, are on ramp alert.

And what is happening on the other side of the world? China is preparing to seize the oil and gas rich South China Sea, a territory also claimed by Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippine Islands. Putin just completed an exercise of their nuclear forces and is deploying a new-generation of mobile ICBMs. We, on the other hand, decommissioned our last ICBM upgrade, the Peace-Keeper ICBM, as part of the S.T.A.R.T. treaty. Putin is ignoring the treaty when it suits him.

There are reports that Putin is placing MRBM missile in Cuba as Khrushchev attempted to do 50 years ago. He’s also rebuilding Russian bases around the world.

The world is not a safe place. As our ability to extend a military presence around the world declines, those who oppose us will fill in the gaps left by our withdrawal. The result will endanger us all.

After the debate last night, focus groups said Obama had a better handle in foreign policy than Romney. We are truly in danger if half the country really believes that.

Facebook

It’s Thursday?

Posted on by

It’s been a busy week. Electioneering and the election earlier this week seemed to just soak up the time. The aftermath yesterday…checking the winners and losers, was busy as well. Some of my favorites won, some lost. It’s been a whirlwind and time has leaped in passing.

I woke up this morning thinking it was Wednesday. I had lain in bed thinking over the election results and some impacts when it occurred to me that I was repeating yesterday. 

That’s when I woke up.

***

In the run-up to the election, current events has been pushed aside.  Imagine my surprise to learn that Mexico has surrendered to the drug cartels!  Mexico’s PRI party regained control in the last election. Once in office, they promptly surrendered to the de facto government that rules large portions of the country.

Mexico Dissolves Its FBI, Moves to Legalize Drugs

by Chriss W. Street 1 Aug 2012

In a stunning development, President-elect Enrique Peña and his Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), who won control of Mexico’s government on July 1st, moved to dissolve the Agencia Federal de Investigación (AFI).  

Modeled after the United States FBI, the AFI was founded in 2001 to crack down on Mexico’s pervasive government corruption and drug trafficking. With rival drug cartels murdering between 47,500 to 67,000 Mexicans over the last six years, the move by the PRI represents the total surrender of Mexico’s sovereignty back to the money and violence of Mexico’s two main drug cartels, the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas. Coupled with the Obama Administration’s “Dreamer” Executive Order curtailing deportations of illegal aliens, a hands-off policy on both sides of the border foreshadows a huge increase in “narco-trafficking” violence and corruption flooding into the United States.    

The PRI ruled Mexico with an iron fist for 71 years between 1929 and 2000.  Although the PRI claimed they were the socialist peasant’s party, they operated as a corrupt political organization that siphoned off wealth from Mexico’s nationalized oil industry with bribes for protecting the drug cartels that trafficked in marijuana and narcotics into the United States. As a glaring example of the level of official PRI corruption, in 1982 the oil workers’ union donated a $2 million house as a “gift” to President López Portillo. Mexicans often joke: “Our Presidents are elected as millionaires, but they leave office as billionaires.” 

But on December 1, 2000, Vicente Fox, the former Chief Executive of Coca-Cola in Mexico and founder of the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), was elected President of Mexico. Mr. Fox ran on a platform of reforming Mexico’s pervasive police corruption, and his first move as President was to form the AFI. Under the leadership of President Fox and his party’s successor, President Felipe Calderón, the AFI grew over the next 11 years into a 5,000-member force with an international reputation as a premier drug enforcement agency.  The U.S. provided extensive equipment and training to the AFI. The AFI reciprocated by capturing numerous drug kingpins and extraditing them to face criminal prosecution for murder and drug distribution in the U.S. 

Over the first six months of 2012, the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas carried out a vicious war across Mexico to expand their areas of operations and intimidate the local population. Both cartels engaged in “information operations campaigns” by displaying large numbers of dismembered bodies in public places. The shock value of body dumps was designed to broadcast that the cartels are the dominant authority in Mexico. 

The AFI under President Felipe Calderón retaliated against the major drug cartel kingpins’ horrific bloodshed by partnering with the U.S. and Guatemala to capture Horst Walther Overdick in Guatemala, followed by the capture of Francisco Treviño and Carlos Alejandro “El Fabiruchis” Gutierrez Escobedo and the killing of Gerardo “El Guerra” Guerra Valdez in Mexico, along with the capture of José Treviño in the U.S.

Two days after the election, President-elect Peña came to the U.S. to announce that he would “welcome debate on the issue of drug legalization and regulation in Mexico.”  In an interview by PBS News Hour, President-elect Pena clearly stated:

I’m in favor of opening a new debate in the strategy in the way we fight drug trafficking. It is quite clear that after several years of this fight against drug trafficking, we have more drug consumption, drug use and drug trafficking. That means we are not moving in the right direction. Things are not working.

These are “code words” to signal the PRI intends to cut a profitable deal with the cartels to legalize drugs in exchange for collecting tax revenue on drug sales. The month before, Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) called a Congressional hearing to accuse Peña Nieto of advocating “a reversion” back to the old PRI policies of “turning a blind eye to the cartels” as long as they weren’t perpetrating grisly violence.   

President-elect Peña’s announcement of the PRI’s new cozy relationship with the drug cartels directly followed President Obama’s announcement of his “Dreamer” Executive Order curtailing deportations of “undocumented” aliens. These actions have caused major alarm among rank-and-file border agents that the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas are now unrestrained to flood into the United States with drugs and violence. In a joint union press conference by the customs agents and the border patrol unions, Chris Crane, President of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council (ICE) warned:  

It‘s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we are seeing so far concerns us greatly… There is no burden for the alien to prove anything.

No good will come from this. The security of our southern border has just become more critical than ever before.

***

Claire McCaskill ran an ad prior to the Missouri primary declaring Todd Akin to be, “a dangerous Tea Party extremist,” and, “outside the mainstream.” Various pundits believe she ran the ads because she, McCaskill, believed Akin was the easiest ‘Pub opponent to beat for the Senate.  Whatever her logic, it appears to have helped Akin win some votes in the primary. A quick scan of grassroots websites across the state appeared to confirm the opinions of those pundits.

Personally, I think Ol’ Claire made a strategic mistake.  Breitbart TV has this report.

Claire McCaskill Says Conservatives Are ‘Dangerous,’ ‘Outside of Mainstream’

by Dana Loesch 9 Aug 2012, 2:53 AM PDT

Claire McCaskill’s campaign wasted no time in attacking Todd Akin after his senate primary win. This evening McCaskill sent an email to supporters claiming that Akin is a “dangerous” tea party extremist:

Akin’s Rap Sheet Makes It Clear: Tea Party Congressman’s Outside Of The Mainstream Views, Dangerous Policies Are Wrong for Missouri, From his record to his rhetoric, everything about Todd Akin’s Tea Party policies are outside of the mainstream and dangerous for Missouri families.  

When Missouri Republicans nominated him last night,  they pinned their Senate hopes on a far right,  Tea Party Congressman whose candidacy diminishes the party’s prospects for November.

This coming from McCaskill, a Senator so far removed from the will of her people that after she championed for Obamacare in Missouri, 76% of voters voted to repudiate it via Proposition C. Prop C, or the Health Care Freedom Act, was the first legislative challenge to Obamacare. 

McCaskill again rubber-stamped the Obama agenda when she sided with him against Missouri jobs and coal by voting in favor of the MACT rule and effectively shutting the doors of numerous coal plants. McCaskill once claimed she hated coal, odd considering she represents a big coal state, the industry of which employs thousands. McCaskill has rubber-stamped the Obama agenda on most every policy that would adversely affect Missouri coal and jobs. 

McCaskill cheerleads for an administration that has quadrupled the deficit, run women from the job pool, and devalued the dollar, while trying to persuade seniors that the government knows best how handle their social security. McCaskill has never addressed why government-run social security is the best when that very same government spent it all. The idea that individuals should have a choice between their own responsibility or government irresponsibility is “extremist” to the incumbent. 

McCaskill also attacked Akin over oil subsidies while keeping mum on her support for green tech subsidies. (Akin, in fact, has before said on my show that such subsidies should cease.)

The Democrat incumbent is desperate to cast this race as Harry Reid v Sharon Angle except McCaskill has been trailing in the polls for the past several states, her state repudiated her efforts to cheerlead for Obama, and unlike Reid, McCaskill is attempting to legislate Missouri into the poorhouse with job-killing regulations. Dangerous and “outside of the mainstream?” That sounds like McCaskill.

One way or another, McCaskill will get what she asked for.

***

The Washington Times has a piece about illegal aliens that is putting to bed the excuse they are all productive and here only for jobs.  Truth be told, almost half are on the welfare rolls.  Just think of the savings that could be made if we just cleaned the rolls and limited welfare to US citizens?  Our parasite class is big enough as it is without importing more.

Slow path to progress for U.S. immigrants

43% on welfare after 20 years

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Immigrants lag behind native-born Americans on most measures of economic well-being — even those who have been in the U.S. the longest, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues that full assimilation is a more complex task than overcoming language or cultural differences.

The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

The report was released at a time when both major presidential candidates have backed policies that would make it easier to immigrate legally and would boost the numbers of people coming to the U.S.

…

Federal law requires that the government deny immigrant visas to potential immigrants who are likely to be unable to support themselves and thereby become public charges.

On Tuesday, a handful of Republican senators wrote to the Homeland Security and State departments asking them to explain why they don’t consider whether potential immigrants would use many of the nearly 80 federal welfare programs when they evaluate visa applications.

Neither department responded to messages Tuesday seeking a response to the senators’ letter.

There is more in the complete article. I urge you to read it for yourself.

***

I read some reports today that Citibank, AT&T, and GE are shifting the majority of their contributions to the GOP.  In addition, so are their employees. Usually these corporations suck up to whomever they think will be the winner. They’ve made cozening an art form. Now, they’re abandoning Obama in the hope to gain favor when Romney is in charge.

Corporations are not the only ones. Unions see the writing on the wall, too. The United Mine Workers Association (UMWA), the coal miners union is sitting this election out.

In politics as well as the inevitable sycophants, self-interest is always the top priority.

Facebook

Friday Follies for July 13, 2012

Posted on by

I didn’t realize until this moment that today is Friday the 13th!  Heh!  I don’t care. I’m not superstitious. 

***

Last night was the local ‘Pub monthly meeting.  It was held in the new county HQ. There were few chairs—standing room only. To say “crowded” was an understatement. Our meetings are usually more for meetin’ ‘n greetin’, the politician’s favorite past-time. This one was no exception. I’m not much of a talker. My leg had been hurting all day so we slipped out after grabbing a yard sign for a friend who’s running for office.

One thing struck me.  The “usuals”, those who come to almost every meeting, were there.  There too were some who rarely attend. The reason they were attending is that the Missouri primary is less than a month away and a number of the office holders have primary opponents. I saw several office holders present that I haven’t seen since the county ‘Pub Christmas dinner. Funny how the hot breath of unemployment, in this case losing office, makes a politician more visible to the public.

Many of these folks have become good friends. I’ve supported many with cash, passed out flyers, stood outside polls to help persuade those who arrive still undecided on a candidate. I do my bit, small though it be, to support those who have the same ideals as my wife and I.  But I will describe these events as I see them and will undoubtedly ruffle a feather or two.

I’m not criticizing. It’s human nature. The closer we come to an election, the greater the need to meet with other candidates, make or reaffirm alliances, and for some, to do a little plotting.  I have named myself an Observer of these events. I’m not interesting in running for public office, with one minor exception. But frequently, these meetings make great theater.

***

Some news on the national front. Romney has finally gotten some backbone.  He has publicly called Obama a liar.  It’s about time! As others have said, Romney should treat Obama with the same tactics he treated Santorum, Gingrich and others.  Those were Romney’s fellow Republicans. He must not be less lenient to Obama.

Whether this tactic is working won’t be known from some time yet but there is some early indications that Obama is in deep, deep trouble. His tactics aren’t working.

Polls Prove Romney Outsmarted the Media … Again

For weeks, all we’ve heard in reference to the media/Obama-led attacks against Romney’s so-called outsourcing and offshore accounts is the following: “Romney needs to respond… Romney doesn’t have a response… It’s time for Romney to respond.” Across the media spectrum, we’ve heard this from Obama’s Media Palace Guards on Twitter, in op-eds disguised as straight news, and from television’s talking heads. The media has quite purposefully turned this call for Romney to respond into an incessant drumbeat. But…

It’s a trap.

You see, the outsourcing charge is a bald-faced lie and the offshore-account charge is nothing more than a smear. It was the Washington Post that started the outsourcing lie and it was an Occupy-supporter in Vanity Fair who started the offshore-account smear.

A lie is a lie is a lie.

And a lie can’t gain much traction because, other than the false charge, there’s nothing else for the corrupt media to talk about. But one way to extend a false narrative is to pressure the victim of the lie to respond. A response automatically gives the narrative another few days of life, but as a result only does more damage to the victim. Therefore… a trap.

By not responding, the Romney campaign played a nerve-wracking (for his supporters) game of chicken but ultimately made the wise decision not to feed this narrative fire — to not be the ones who gave the lies artificial life through the pointless act of trying to prove a negative.

And today, polls show Romney made the exact right decision:

Two things have become clear in the presidential race over the past month. One, it’s evident that President Obama’s campaign team believes, with good justification, that attacking Romney’s record at Bain Capital to portray him as a wealthy, out-of-touch millionaire is their most effective line of attack. Second, it’s becoming clear that the attacks are doing more to buy the Obama campaign time than seriously change the trajectory of the race.

For all the attention paid to the effectiveness of President Obama’s Bain-themed attacks, it’s remarkable how Obama has been stuck right around 47 percent for a very long time.  As the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza documented, the president’s team has handily outspent Romney and his allied super PACs, pouring in $91 million into eight swing states in an early spending barrage intended to make Romney seem an unacceptable challenger.  But for all that effort, the numbers haven’t moved much at all: The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out today shows the race deadlocked at 47 percent. Yesterday’s USA Today/Gallup swing state poll showed Obama statistically tied with Romney, the exact same result the survey showed one month ago.

Meanwhile, in the coming months, Romney should have a spending advantage, having significantly outraised Obama over the last two months.  Along with the RNC, the campaign has $160 million cash-on-hand, a total that will likely be greater than the Obama team’s money. (The Obama campaign tellingly didn’t release their cash-on-hand figures.)  That will allow Romney to match or surpass Obama on the airwaves, having survived a period when he was outgunned.

One of the pieces of bait the media used to try and get Romney to respond was to bring up the damage the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry in ’04. The myth is that Kerry ignored the criticism of his war record for too long and that this cost him the election.  

But that is a myth. The difference between the Swift Boat Vets questioning Kerry’s biography about his time in Vietnam and the media/Obama led outsource/offshore attacks is that the Vets were telling the truth and Obama and the media are lying. There’s absolutely no upside for Romney to breathe life into a false narrative from a defensive crouch. None.

According to that new Washington Post poll, both men are tied at 47/47.   But had a gullible Romney blinked and been fooled into letting himself get wrapped ’round the axle of these false charges, not only would the media have blown both stories up into something much bigger and longer-lasting (which is why they were begging Romney to respond), but today’s poll numbers would likely look entirely different. Obama and the media had set up a no-win situation.

But what they didn’t count on was Romney refusing to play.

If you look at the state of the race today, we have 119 days to the election, Romney and the Republicans raised $106 million last month, $35 million more than Obama and the Democrats.

Obama has already spent a ton of money and begun to punch himself out with his best attacks.

Romney, however, hasn’t even gotten started and has 16 weeks to expose before the voting public this president’s failed record. And to do so only after people are paying attention.

The media is brilliant at creating a false reality that has nothing to do with what’s happening out there in the world. If you watch CNN and MSNBC, you would think the roof was caving in on Romney over outsourcing and his personal wealth, but that’s what the media wants us to believe in order to control the narrative and to get Romney to dance to their tune. 

Thank heaven, Romney isn’t falling for it.

Right now it’s Obama who’s acting erratic and panicked and like a loser, not Romney.

I like our chances and I love the discipline I’m seeing from Team Romney.

***

This will be a bit short.  It caught my eye. Due to my experiences with Sprint before I retired, I have had some exposure to this issue.

The core issue is buying Chinese chips and telecom equipment. The intelligence community is concerned those items may contain Trojans that could provide the Chinese a gateway into our innermost secure voice and data networks.

Sprint, like most of the telecom providers, have governmental contracts to create private and secure voice and data networks for various federal agencies, like the FBI and IRS, as well as for the Department of Defense.  By contractual requirement, the hardware, the equipment used to created these private networks must be domestic.  In cases of a unique requirement, a waiver can be granted if there is sufficient justification. That is rare, however. There really isn’t a requirement that can’t be fulfilled with a domestic product.

The question arises with those domestic vendors.  Does their equipment contain Chinese components?  In many cases, since the US chip production has mostly fled overseas, the only source for some specialized components is…Chinese.

Now it appears that the fears of our Intelligence Agencies that those Chinese components do contain Trojans, gateways to external communications monitors, have been verified.

 

FBI Targets Chinese Firm Over Iran Deal

Feds: Telecom giant ZTE illegally shipped U.S.-made components

JULY 12–The FBI has opened a criminal investigation targeting a leading Chinese telecommunications firm that allegedly conspired to illegally ship hardware and software purchased from U.S. tech firms to Iran’s government-controlled telecom company, a violation of several federal laws and a trade embargo imposed on the outlaw Islamic nation, The Smoking Gun has learned.

The federal probe, launched earlier this year, has also uncovered evidence that officials with the Chinese company, ZTE Corporation (ZTE), are “engaged in an ongoing attempt to corruptly obstruct and impede” a Department of Commerce inquiry into the tainted $130 million Iranian transaction, according to a confidential FBI affidavit.

Officials with ZTE allegedly began plotting to cover up details of the Iranian deal after Reuters reported on the transaction in late-March. The news agency revealed that the telecom equipment sold to Iran was a “powerful surveillance system capable of monitoring landline, mobile, and Internet communications.” Included in the material sent to Iran were products manufactured by U.S. firms like Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco Systems, Dell, and Symantec.

Concerned that they could no longer “hide anything” in the wake of the Reuters report, ZTE lawyers discussed shredding documents, altering records, and lying to U.S. government officials, according to an insider’s account provided to FBI agents by a Texas lawyer who last year began serving as general counsel of ZTE’s wholly owned U.S. subsidiary. ZTE, the world’s fourth largest telecom equipment manufacturer, is publicly traded, though its controlling shareholder is a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

The FBI probe is being run out of the bureau’s Dallas office by agents assigned to a counterintelligence and counterespionage squad. Like the Department of Commerce investigation (and a related congressional inquiry being conducted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), the FBI opened its case following the March 22 Reuters story by reporter Steve Stecklow.

…

During a May 2 interview with two FBI agents, Yablon provided a startling account of his interaction with ZTE representatives who were once eager to devise strategies that would allow them to sell phones containing U.S. made components to “banned” countries. But following the Reuters story, Yablon recalled, the Chinese officials sought to obscure details of the illegal backdoor Iranian deal and, in the process, stymie U.S. government investigators circling the multinational company.

The FBI affidavit reveals that ZTE recently informed the Department of Commerce that it would not comply with an administrative subpoena served on the company seeking records of the nine-figure Iran transaction. Yablon told the FBI that he learned that ZTE officials “had contacted the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government, which was prepared to advise [the company] that if it complied with the DoC administrative subpoena, it would be violating PRC law.”

Days after the Reuters story was published, Yablon recalled, he spoke with ZTE lawyer Xue Xing Ma (also known as “Marsha”), who said the company was concerned about how the news outlet obtained a copy of the 907-page packing list for the system shipped to Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI).  “Marsha told Yablon the corporation was concerned because it could no longer ‘hide anything,’” reported Agent Carwile.

The story gets more weird as it progresses. Evidence now in FBI hands appear to prove the Chinese have sold, illegally, US technology to countries under export and technology embargoes.  It also presents information that the systems were designed to provide monitoring gateways to allow those governments to spy on their citizens.

This issue will not be resolved soon.  Government regulations that has driven our production overseas, or has driven our production out of business must be abolished. We’ve become our own worse enemy under a government who appears to be a willing accomplice to our foreign and domestic enemies.

Tuesday’s Thoughts

Posted on by
The left, in the persons of Obama and Panetta with the acquiescence of McConnell and Boehner, are gutting our military.  The cuts hearken back to Clinton’s emasculation of the military when cuts to procurement ment that Soldiers and Marines had no ammo to acquire and keep proficiency in their basic arm—the rifle.  Army recruits completed basic training without ever firing their rifles.  That was left for their first duty assignment.  Except…those units didn’t have funds for practice ammo either.  All available supplies were being sent to Kosovo and front line units.

We now return to those bad old days.

***

This week IBD posted some memorable GOP quotes from this last week.  Here are a few that bear a closer review.
  • My view is that the principles I’ve learned in business and the principles as governor frankly have made me more conservative as time has gone on. I’ve seen a lot of government trying to solve problems and it didn’t work. And my view is the right course for America is to have someone who understands how the economy works, who will passionately get America back on track. —Mitt Romney   (If that is so, Mitt, why have you never disavowed Romneycare?  Why have you never said that you now disapprove it?)
  • I think that the most important ingredients in this country that made us great was our founders understood what liberty meant. And that is what we need. We have deserted that. We have drifted a long way. It involved our right to our life, right to our liberty. We ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor. We ought to understand property rights. We ought to understand contract rights. We ought to understand what sound money is all about. And we ought to understand what national defense means. That means defending this country. —Ron Paul (Really?!?!  If you think national defense means defending our country, just when you that occur?  When Iran builds nukes?  No, you’ve already said that’s OK with you. When Iran attacks Israel?  No, you’ve already said we should recall our forces to the US and ignore entanglements overseas. So when would you, Ron Paul? When a nuke is set off here in the US would that finally be a trigger for you?)
  • The right course for America is not to raise taxes on Americans. I understand that President Obama and people of his political persuasion would like to take more money from the American people. And they want to do that so they can continue to grow government. The answer for America is not to grow government. It is to shrink government. —Mitt Romney (On that, I can agree.)
  • The problem with Congressman Paul is all the things that Republicans like about him he can’t accomplish and all the things they’re worried about he’ll do day one. And that’s the problem. — Rick Santorum (Yep. Me too.)
  • Listen, I’m not anti-union. I’m pro-jobs. —Rick Perry (Unions are for Unions. They care nothing about jobs unless it’s their own.)
  • (About the EPA)   In Arizona, they went in on the dust regulation and suggested to them that maybe if they watered down the earth, they wouldn’t have these dust storms in the middle of the year.  And people said to ’em, “You know, the reason it’s called a desert is there’s no water.” Now this is an agency out of touch with reality, which I believe is incorrigible, and you need a new agency that is practical, has common sense, uses economic factors. —Newt Gingrich (Newt is always one with a good come-back.  The intelligence of a federal agency is the inverse of it’s funding.)
  • We have a president that’s a socialist. I don’t think our founding fathers wanted America to be a socialist country. So I disagree with that premise that somehow or another that President Obama reflects our founding fathers.

    He doesn’t. He talks about having a more powerful, more centralized, more consuming and costly federal government. I am a Tenth Amendment-believing governor. I truly believe that we need a president that respects the Tenth Amendment, that pushes back to the states. Whether it’s how to deliver education, how to deliver health care, how to do our environmental regulations. The states will considerably do a better job than a one-size-fits-all Washington, D.C., led by this president. — Rick Perry  (Amen, Rick.)   

 These quotes and more can be found here on the IBD website.