The Fighting Spirit

It seems that President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, is on his way out. Maybe it’s the fact that under his command he has failed to stop three major terrorist attacks…

For several weeks President Obama has been holding serious conversations about whether to ask Blair to step down and has interviewed candidates to replace him. After a discussion this afternoon between the president and Blair on a secure phone line about the best way forward, Blair offered to resign and the president said he would accept, sources told ABC News.

I wonder though. Is it really his fault? When we have an administration that is hell bent on “sitting down at the table” with our enemies and refuses to even use the word “terrorist”, I can’t help but wonder if President Obama himself didn’t tie the Admiral’s hands behind his back.

Blair sealed his own fate in late April when he rebuked current Obama administration policy by admitting that harsh interrogation techniques actually produce results that help stop terrorist attacks.

Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, pointed out that most of what we know about al-Qaeda came from using those techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, countering leaks last week from the Obama administration that claimed the methods produced no data

It’s going to be tough for President Obama to name a new Director of National Intelligence when, for the past year and a half, he’s proven there hasn’t been any. Intelligence that is.

In summary… If you’re fighting a war you need the proper weapons in the field and when you’re facing an enemy in that war, you cannot win if you don’t step up and actually fight.

— Posted with Stuffr! —

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

One thing Rep. Gingrey mentioned at the town hall meeting was that ‘ObamaCare’ may have barred members of Congress from the federal employees health program.

Today, that same news broke all over the Internet.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.

Moreover, it says, the strictures of the new law will apply to staff members who work in the personal office of a member of Congress. But they may or may not apply to people who work on the staff of Congressional committees and in “leadership offices” like those of the House speaker and the Democratic and Republican leaders and whips in the two chambers.

It seems the Democratic leadership was in such a rush to pass the bill, none of them actually read the bill. If they did read the bill, they surely didn’t understand it, which worries me even more.

You see, the bill doesn’t establish a “start date” for this provision of the law, and therefore falls into a very well defined area of statutory interpretation.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

This basically means that the law which bans members of Congress and their staff from the health benefit program they all love so much (and probably want to keep) took effect with the stroke of the President’s pens when he signed the health-care bill one letter at a time.

They did not read the bill. They did not understand the bill. The Democrats that voted for this bill deserve this, at the very least.

On another note, I am sure you heard that President Obama has vowed not to use nuclear weapons, no matter what. Well, not only will he not use nuclear weapons, but he informed those who may want to attack us that the government will not respond with aid after an attack.

The White House has warned state and local governments not to expect a “significant federal response” at the scene of a terrorist nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast, according to a planning guide.

The chaos that would inevitably follow such a blast would make it difficult for the federal government to react quickly.

It will take them 72 hours to respond to a disaster like this? What do the victims of Hurricane Katrina think about this? Where’s Brownie when we need him?

Do you feel safe now?

— Posted with Stuffr! —

Was Blind But Now We See

Before the Presidential election in 2008, I didn’t think Barack Obama was qualified to serve as President of the United States. Look back into the archives of this site and you will find numerous posts where I questioned his experience and the constant changing of his responses.

It’s now April of 2010, and I still don’t think he’s qualified to serve as President of the United States. Put aside any differences about health care, immigration, or any other social issues. Put aside any differences on his Marxist ties, his socialist views, or the fact he is working hand in hand with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to kill capitalism in America.

To prove my point, you only have to listen when he speaks about any other subject. Wait until you read what he says about rogue states and terrorist organizations for example.

“We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons to make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

Yes, the President of the United States actually told every enemy country, every rogue state, and every terrorist looking to spill American blood that no matter what they do to our citizens America will not do whatever it takes to defend itself.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

The President of the United States is also the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. I don’t see how he can effectively perform his duties as CiC if he is unwilling to take a strong stance with our enemies.

Weakening our rights, weakening our economy, and now weakening our stance with foreign countries.

Barack Obama is a weak President and all the evidence was there long before people stepped into the voting booth. It’s a shame many people were too blind to see that.

— Posted with Stuffr! —

The World According To Janet

Janet Napolitano is lucky the whiplash from her tongue didn’t kill her. After the attempt by a terrorist to blow up an airliner on approach to Detroit, she claimed that the system worked as it should have.

“Once this incident occurred, everything went according to clockwork… Blah, blah, blah, I look like an Andes Mint in this outfit, blah, blah, blah… Again, everybody reacted as they should, the system, once the incident occurred, the system worked.”

 
Then, just a day later, she back pedaled, claimed that everyone was taking her quote out of context, and then agreed that the system failed miserably.

 
The Obama administration and Janet Napolitano have a serious problem with the war on terror, and she sums it up well in her response to Matt Lauer.

“Sure, I think the comment is being taken out of context. What I’m saying is, once the incident occurred, moving forward, we were immediately able to notify the 128 flights in the air of protective measures to take, immediately able to notify law enforcement on the ground, airports both domestic and internationally, all carriers, all of that happening within 60 to 90 minutes.”

They are actually proud that the “system worked” after the incident occurred. They are proud that they reacted after the terrorist was thwarted. They are proud that they did something after the guy tried to blow up the plane.

Let’s forget the fact the man was on a terror list. Let’s forget the fact the man had no passport. Let’s forget the fact that if it wasn’t for some brave passengers there would have been a lot more to react to after the fact.

Janet Napolitano is proud that they were able to get the word out and respond within 60 to 90 minutes. Sorry, that’s not good enough. Responding within 60 to 90 minutes wouldn’t have changed anything on September 11th, and it sure as hell didn’t do anything to change the events which took place on Christmas day.

American citizens stopped this attack, not the Department of Homeland Security, not the Transportation Security Administration, not the Obama Administration. Everyday people like you and me stepped up at the right time, made the right decision, and made sure the terrorist didn’t succeed. Too bad the government dropped the ball and allowed him to put all of their lives in jeopardy in the first place.

We don’t need a President (or anyone in his administration) who responds to terror attacks, we need a President who will make sure that steps are taken to prevent incidents like this from occurring at all. The Department of Homeland Security should, by definition of its very name, keep the homeland secure, shouldn’t it? In this case, they failed. They failed miserably.

If The Failed One® is serious about homeland security and keeping our country safe, he will ask for Janet Napolitano’s resignation. Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

— Posted with Stuffr! —

Name Dropping Gets You Nowhere

CannonIn my final post about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security “Rightwing Extremism” assessment, I made reference to something that was quoted in the report, and I want to make a few clarifications.

At the bottom of page five, the assessment reads,

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

  • During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

In short, the government wants you to think that the threat of recent gun control legislation will push many “rightwing extremists” over the edge creating a heightened level of extremist paranoia, weapon stockpiling, and hostility toward the goverment. They go a step further in their attempt to instill fear by referencing the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

Many people remember the events that occurred at Waco but few people I have spoken too remember much about Ruby Ridge. Those who do remember it, usually can’t remember why they do, but they know something bad happened there.

Let’s take a look at the history of events which occurred at Ruby Ridge in August of 1992 and try to ascertain why our government would still be referencing the events there, 17 years after it happened.

Continue reading

Twenty-Seven Potential Acts Of Violence

Blue GrosbeakWhen we think about the implications of Homeland Security, it’s important to remember that Americans are not the enemy.

As I wrap up my three-part series about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security “assessment” on Rightwing Extremism (PDF), I want to point out several more references included in the report, and touch on some thoughts about the release of this report.

Let’s refresh our memory.

The title of the assessment is “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”. The targets of the assessment are radical and extremist groups as well as “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration”, and the government believes some of our fine men and women of the military could be extremists, or even potential terrorists. All of these items are mentioned before the end of page 3. It’s a nine page report.

Page three wraps up by blaming the current economic crisis and the election of Barack Obama as the catalysts for creating more extremist thoughts in our country.

Page four makes it clear that most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical since the election and have stopped short of violent action. The assessment warns us (vaguely) that there were two incidents before the election, but law enforcement interceded. Isn’t it funny they can point to specifics like the shooting in Pittsburgh on April 4th and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but when it comes to supporting their “imposition of fear”, they can’t state any specifics?

Apparently, the government feels that the “perceived government infringement on civil liberties” leads to domestic rightwing terrorists lashing out. Of course they have to cite an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors, yet, if you remember correctly in the paragraph above this one, they also stated that there has been no violent action.

Continue reading