First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance. I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests. The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence. To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty. But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.
As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe. See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.
National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens. That's it. Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First." A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens.
Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"
That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem. Are trade terriffs on imports good? How about a lax or strict immigration policy? What about (any given) war? Not always easy.
Sometimes, however, it is easy. Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad? Bad. There's not even a question here. Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad? Bad. Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared. Ergo: bad.
Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms. I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy. What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)? How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)? How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?
And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump. Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things. He understands them in his bones. Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." That says it all in four words. America was great "before." What is "before?" Well, that's up to the individual. But it's not great now. So let's make it great again.
Let's put Americans first. Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else. Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one? Everyone starts "unskilled"). Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists. Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves. If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.
And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed. By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce. The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here. The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."
Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.
Will Donald Trump win in November? I don't know. People are saying he has no chance.
* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting. Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2016
Friday, March 20, 2015
What Do Conservatives Want?
So, over at the HQ this morning, commenter jwest raised an interesting point. His comment is too long to quote in its entirety, but the gist seems to be this: Conservatives, especially in the blogosphere, are too ready to pull out the Long Knives whenever one of our allies (actual allies- a Perry, or Walker, or Cruz, or Lee) makes a tiny misstep. So we should probably make some decisions, as a movement, about where we really stand.
So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader). I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.
Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it). Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens. Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals. Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.
Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.
The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance. The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance. Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).
I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money. I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much). Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient. If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.
One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA. Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's. For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan. Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.
I'll add on top of that:
A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country. Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).
What are your thoughts? Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.
So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader). I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.
1: Immigration/Border
On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime." Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.
Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it). Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens. Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals. Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.
2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance
On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.
Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.
The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance. The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance. Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).
3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)
On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.
I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money. I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much). Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient. If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.
4: Social Security
On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.
One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA. Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's. For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan. Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.
I'll add on top of that:
5: Taxes
A massively simplified tax code. Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today. I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment. Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).6: Budget
A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country. Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).
What are your thoughts? Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
SCOAMT^2
Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor. I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.
Well, now I have more evidence. Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal. Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration). Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.
So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away. Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship. Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war. It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.
But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior. When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban. This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason. Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy. That crime for which there is exactly one punishment. Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.
So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release. Absolutely. Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists. This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.” Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter? Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”
Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too. Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs. That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW. So it’s a POW-swap. Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.
Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief. He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off. As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal. So it makes some sense.
What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this. What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up? The President of the United States just arguably committed treason. He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency. If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?
It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT. They must start stone-walling him at every turn. No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT. No more pushes for Amnesty. No more “my friends across the aisle.” Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama. And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.
Which is it?
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Evil at the VA
Or: An early look at ObamaCare "Death Panels"
This Story is by Becky Oliver at Fox 4 here in DFW. Go read it: seriously.
For those too impatient- a veteran noticed a lump under his arm, and tried to get care via the VA. Because of their bureaucratic run-around, his treatment was delayed by 4 months. That delay was in treatment of Melanoma- a very agressive cancer. It is very likely that, had he been seen initially and treated with current treatment options, he would not be a terminal patient today.
There's no way to know that, of course, but it's highly likely.
Now, first off- if you notice a lump or an odd mole or anything like that, and the answer you're given when you seek treatment is "you'll have to wait several months?" Yeah, seek treatment elsewhere.
That said- how has this evil infested the VA? And why should we believe that it won't infest ObamaCare? I am virtually certain that no one at the VA looked at this veteran's chart and decided to let him die of cancer. I'm certain it was all much more banal than that. Indeed, it is the very banality of the evil that makes it so terrifying. If someone had set out to deny this man, and his family for that matter, care, then there would be someone who could be made to answer for this. Someone could be called out and made to answer. Instead, it was simply "the process."
This comes as the VA is under scrutiny in Arizona, which is itself merely a symptom of a wider problem. Up and down the VA there are stories of delayed care, sub-standard care, and simple neglect. Such a culture can only exist if the man at the top allows it. In this case, the man at the top is not Secretary Eric Shinseki. Given the amount of time this has been going on, and the fact that Barack Obama specifically ran on "fixing" the VA, the "man at the top" is Barack Hussein Obama, that stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.
If the SCOAMT cared about our Veterans, he would already have demanded Secretary Shinseki's resignation. If he really cared about our Veterans, he would already be working to correct issues like this. Instead he tries to handle like a "fake scandal," and rallies the Democrats around him to decry the "faux outrage."
No, the SCOAMT does not care about our Veterans- they are of no use to him. And so it will be with your health care under ObamaCare. There will be delays and bureaucracy instead of consultations and treatment. When confronted with the consequences, responses like those featured in the linked story will be issued.
One other party is responsible for this- Republicans in Congress. It is they who have refused to act as a check on Barack Obama's worst tendencies. At every turn they choose to "wait for a better opportunity" or not to investigate at all. How many opportunities have the Republicans had to pull the SCOAMT up short? And every time they have refused because someone somewhere might be offended.
There is only one way to fix this culture of neglect and carelessness at the VA, and that is to remove the man at the top. Not the Secretary of the VA- his boss.
This Story is by Becky Oliver at Fox 4 here in DFW. Go read it: seriously.
For those too impatient- a veteran noticed a lump under his arm, and tried to get care via the VA. Because of their bureaucratic run-around, his treatment was delayed by 4 months. That delay was in treatment of Melanoma- a very agressive cancer. It is very likely that, had he been seen initially and treated with current treatment options, he would not be a terminal patient today.
There's no way to know that, of course, but it's highly likely.
Now, first off- if you notice a lump or an odd mole or anything like that, and the answer you're given when you seek treatment is "you'll have to wait several months?" Yeah, seek treatment elsewhere.
That said- how has this evil infested the VA? And why should we believe that it won't infest ObamaCare? I am virtually certain that no one at the VA looked at this veteran's chart and decided to let him die of cancer. I'm certain it was all much more banal than that. Indeed, it is the very banality of the evil that makes it so terrifying. If someone had set out to deny this man, and his family for that matter, care, then there would be someone who could be made to answer for this. Someone could be called out and made to answer. Instead, it was simply "the process."
This comes as the VA is under scrutiny in Arizona, which is itself merely a symptom of a wider problem. Up and down the VA there are stories of delayed care, sub-standard care, and simple neglect. Such a culture can only exist if the man at the top allows it. In this case, the man at the top is not Secretary Eric Shinseki. Given the amount of time this has been going on, and the fact that Barack Obama specifically ran on "fixing" the VA, the "man at the top" is Barack Hussein Obama, that stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.
If the SCOAMT cared about our Veterans, he would already have demanded Secretary Shinseki's resignation. If he really cared about our Veterans, he would already be working to correct issues like this. Instead he tries to handle like a "fake scandal," and rallies the Democrats around him to decry the "faux outrage."
No, the SCOAMT does not care about our Veterans- they are of no use to him. And so it will be with your health care under ObamaCare. There will be delays and bureaucracy instead of consultations and treatment. When confronted with the consequences, responses like those featured in the linked story will be issued.
One other party is responsible for this- Republicans in Congress. It is they who have refused to act as a check on Barack Obama's worst tendencies. At every turn they choose to "wait for a better opportunity" or not to investigate at all. How many opportunities have the Republicans had to pull the SCOAMT up short? And every time they have refused because someone somewhere might be offended.
There is only one way to fix this culture of neglect and carelessness at the VA, and that is to remove the man at the top. Not the Secretary of the VA- his boss.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Memorial Day
That's an odd name, right? "Memorial Day." A memorial is a structure, monument, or act designed to help people remember an event. So what is the memorial? What event is being remembered?
Is the memorial cooking hamburgers and hot-dogs? Is it flags and banners? (BTW- Kudos to Whataburger- every one I saw today had their flag at half-staff) It certainly seems fairly generic, doesn't it? I mean, there are at least three secular holidays we celebrate the same way- and in Texas we've got a lot more. So that can't be the memorial, can it?
And what are we remembering? The last Memorial Day? More seriously, are we remembering every individual death incurred by members of our military?
I feel like Charlie Brown asking the meaning of Christmas. There has to be more than hot-dogs and hamburgers, more than graves and flags. So what is it?
Maybe the answer lies in what it means (or at least used to mean) to be an American. Maybe the answer is not the individual deaths, but the purpose of those deaths. Maybe the answer is this: Today we remember Martyrs. Not martyrs for any Religion- but Martyrs for Freedom. Today we remember the lives they knowingly endangered and gave up so that we, today- and every day if we choose- *could* eat hamburgers and hot-dogs. Today we remember their families and the sacrifices they made.
Today we remember that freedom is easily lost or forfeited, and requires a terrible price to redeem. I thank God that I have not had to pay that price- not myself, or anyone I love. I thank God that there are those who have, and more who continue to stand ready to make that sacrifice.
God bless you, heroes, I, for one, am not worthy of your service.
Is the memorial cooking hamburgers and hot-dogs? Is it flags and banners? (BTW- Kudos to Whataburger- every one I saw today had their flag at half-staff) It certainly seems fairly generic, doesn't it? I mean, there are at least three secular holidays we celebrate the same way- and in Texas we've got a lot more. So that can't be the memorial, can it?
And what are we remembering? The last Memorial Day? More seriously, are we remembering every individual death incurred by members of our military?
I feel like Charlie Brown asking the meaning of Christmas. There has to be more than hot-dogs and hamburgers, more than graves and flags. So what is it?
Maybe the answer lies in what it means (or at least used to mean) to be an American. Maybe the answer is not the individual deaths, but the purpose of those deaths. Maybe the answer is this: Today we remember Martyrs. Not martyrs for any Religion- but Martyrs for Freedom. Today we remember the lives they knowingly endangered and gave up so that we, today- and every day if we choose- *could* eat hamburgers and hot-dogs. Today we remember their families and the sacrifices they made.
Today we remember that freedom is easily lost or forfeited, and requires a terrible price to redeem. I thank God that I have not had to pay that price- not myself, or anyone I love. I thank God that there are those who have, and more who continue to stand ready to make that sacrifice.
God bless you, heroes, I, for one, am not worthy of your service.
Monday, January 28, 2013
An Uncomfortable Truth
One of the rhetorical devices that the anti-gun nuts will use is that if you support the full-auto weapons ban, you must necessarily support the "Assault Weapon Ban." Now, that argument has at least two problems with it.
First there is the problem that the two types of weapon are functionally different. A fully automatic weapon and an "Assault Weapon" (which is defined almost solely by cosmetic features) are two very different things. Even a fully-automatic weapon (such as a machine gun) and true assault rifle (select fire weapon) are functionally very different.
Second is the idea that one supports the full-auto ban in the first place. We'll come back to that later.
Leftists would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are, by their definition, more deadly than weapons that require some sort of "action" to chamber the next round. (That's what "bolt-action" or "lever-action" or "pump-action" mean- you have to physically manipulate the gun to get a bullet into position for firing). So, by this logic, this is an ultra deadly weapon that no one should own:
Where as this is a nice safe weapon, that doesn't fire at the rate of one pull = one bullet:
Hmmm... maybe it's not the frequency of bullets being fired that makes a weapon dangerous, but the size of the round.
In that case this:
is more dangerous than this:
Wait. That can't be it...
No. What they really want to ban are all weapons that scare them- and all weapons scare them.
Now, as to supporting the full-auto ban in the first place. Some people do. I don't.
The point that 2nd Amendment Advocates try to make is (primarily) this: responsible gun owners are responsible. The weapon is not, itself, dangerous, and people who are going to be a danger will find a way to be a danger no matter what weapons are illegal. I don't see how that fails to apply to a machine gun, a howitzer, or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Certainly we should hold people accountable for their behavior- and mishandling a weapon (any weapon) in such a way that it injures or kills someone else should be (and is) a crime. But if the point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the People from the depredations of a tyrannical government (it is), then there is no philosophical basis to prevent honest, responsible gun owners from purchasing and owning any weapon they desire.
First there is the problem that the two types of weapon are functionally different. A fully automatic weapon and an "Assault Weapon" (which is defined almost solely by cosmetic features) are two very different things. Even a fully-automatic weapon (such as a machine gun) and true assault rifle (select fire weapon) are functionally very different.
Second is the idea that one supports the full-auto ban in the first place. We'll come back to that later.
Leftists would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are, by their definition, more deadly than weapons that require some sort of "action" to chamber the next round. (That's what "bolt-action" or "lever-action" or "pump-action" mean- you have to physically manipulate the gun to get a bullet into position for firing). So, by this logic, this is an ultra deadly weapon that no one should own:
 |
| A Highly Deadly Semi-Automatic Rifle. In .22LR |
Where as this is a nice safe weapon, that doesn't fire at the rate of one pull = one bullet:
 |
| A Nice, Safe Howitzer requires reloading between shots. |
Hmmm... maybe it's not the frequency of bullets being fired that makes a weapon dangerous, but the size of the round.
In that case this:
 |
| A .45 Revolver Fires a Big Bullet |
is more dangerous than this:
 |
| NATO 5.56 is not much larger than .22 caliber. |
Wait. That can't be it...
No. What they really want to ban are all weapons that scare them- and all weapons scare them.
Now, as to supporting the full-auto ban in the first place. Some people do. I don't.
The point that 2nd Amendment Advocates try to make is (primarily) this: responsible gun owners are responsible. The weapon is not, itself, dangerous, and people who are going to be a danger will find a way to be a danger no matter what weapons are illegal. I don't see how that fails to apply to a machine gun, a howitzer, or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Certainly we should hold people accountable for their behavior- and mishandling a weapon (any weapon) in such a way that it injures or kills someone else should be (and is) a crime. But if the point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the People from the depredations of a tyrannical government (it is), then there is no philosophical basis to prevent honest, responsible gun owners from purchasing and owning any weapon they desire.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough
Just two days ago, I said this:
Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:
So there you have it. Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.
Yay us.
Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time. In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle. Jared Laughner, anyone? How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?
I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter. What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist. In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."
(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).
Let it Burn.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person." So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs. You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.
Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:
The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.
But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”
It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”
So there you have it. Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.
Yay us.
Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time. In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle. Jared Laughner, anyone? How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?
I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter. What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist. In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."
(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).
Let it Burn.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
We Do Not Have A Revenue Problem
As the deadline to stop the automatic tax increases and budget cuts collectively known as the "Fiscal Cliff" looms ever larger, we here a lot about "increased revenue." This is simply 1984 Newspeak for "tax rate hikes." The only question, it seems, is whether they should be called tax hikes, in which case actual marginal rates would go up, or whether it should be called "closing loopholes," and use the obfuscation of keeping marginal rates the same but removing deductions to increase taxes. Based on both the Republicans' and Democrats' talking points, you'd think that the United States Government was the orphan Oliver asking, "Please sir, I'd like some more."
This is ludicrous. The United States does not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the United States Government took in 2.486 trillion dollars in 2012. According to Economy Watch, the projected US GDP for 2012 is 15.880 trillion dollars. This means that the US Government will take in around 15.6% of GDP in direct revenue. This a little on the low side, but well within statistical averages for the last several decades.
Taking in roughly 1/7th of the GDP as revenue should be more than sufficient. The problem is not revenue. The problem is spending. For 2012, the US Deficit is projected to be over 1.3 trillion dollars. That means the United States is spending more than 150% of the revenue it takes in. Total Debt is projected to be over 16 trillion dollars, or roughly 103% of GDP.
This is insane. There is no way, if we confiscated all the wealth from every person living in the United States, that we could pay our bills. This is like a family making $250,000/yr spending $380,000, and already being over one million dollars in debt. What has to be cut is spending. And the biggest drains on the treasury are entitlements, followed by military spending.
Any discussion of the budget that does not include massive cuts to entitlement and (sorry, to say) military spending is simply not serious. Any discussion of the budget which has as its premise that we need higher revenue is simply not serious. It is political posturing, and posing for the cameras. Such discussions are aimed to score political points and harm political opponents. Anyone engaging in such rhetoric should be immediately dismissed as unserious, at best, and disingenuous at worst.
Speaker Boehner, this means you.
This is ludicrous. The United States does not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the United States Government took in 2.486 trillion dollars in 2012. According to Economy Watch, the projected US GDP for 2012 is 15.880 trillion dollars. This means that the US Government will take in around 15.6% of GDP in direct revenue. This a little on the low side, but well within statistical averages for the last several decades.
Taking in roughly 1/7th of the GDP as revenue should be more than sufficient. The problem is not revenue. The problem is spending. For 2012, the US Deficit is projected to be over 1.3 trillion dollars. That means the United States is spending more than 150% of the revenue it takes in. Total Debt is projected to be over 16 trillion dollars, or roughly 103% of GDP.
This is insane. There is no way, if we confiscated all the wealth from every person living in the United States, that we could pay our bills. This is like a family making $250,000/yr spending $380,000, and already being over one million dollars in debt. What has to be cut is spending. And the biggest drains on the treasury are entitlements, followed by military spending.
Any discussion of the budget that does not include massive cuts to entitlement and (sorry, to say) military spending is simply not serious. Any discussion of the budget which has as its premise that we need higher revenue is simply not serious. It is political posturing, and posing for the cameras. Such discussions are aimed to score political points and harm political opponents. Anyone engaging in such rhetoric should be immediately dismissed as unserious, at best, and disingenuous at worst.
Speaker Boehner, this means you.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Treason: Benghazi "Video" Talking Points came from White House
This is hardly news, but how many times does it have to be confirmed before Congress does something about it? As the attack on the Benghazi compound was happening, the US Government already knew that Al Qaida, or and Al Qaida linked group, was behind the attack. This information was communicated to the White House. When Barack Obama chose to send US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice out to say "be calm, all is well," the talking points had been scrubbed of any reference to terrorism.
Now, Republicans confirm that those changes came "from the Administration." Let me say something they are restrained (for a variety of reasons) from saying. Barack Obama made that decision. Barack Obama, the same man who mandated that references to "terror organization" and "terrorism" be scrubbed from FBI training manuals, chose to scrub the talking points of references to Al Qaida. Why he did this I can only speculate. Whatever his motive, however, the effect is the same: he aided our enemies by not sending help immediately to kill them and save as many American lives as possible, and then he provided them comfort when he refused to identify the attack as a terrorist attack, and waited nearly two weeks to send investigators to the compound.
Now, I've received some push-back on this "aid and comfort to the enemy" formulation, so let me illustrate it another way.
Let's say the US was in a war, and the Commander of a Forward Operating Base received an urgent distress call from a team in the field. This call was corroborated by surveillance from a drone in the air, and other assets were already in the area. Additionally, this commander had forces under his command he could order into the area, some of them would arrive in an hour, others after a few hours. Then let's say he chose not to send help. Okay, well, that's just dereliction of duty (which, by the way, should be enough to get the President impeached).
But let's go further. When he reports on the incident to his chain of command, he claims that he doesn't know what force was responsible for the attack, and hints that some completely unrelated event caused the fight. He then waits for two weeks while the bad guys get further and further away, giving them plenty of time to regroup and organize further attacks. Now he's lied to his superiors.
At that point, we're beyond mere "dereliction of duty," we've found direct, conscious choices which provided aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't think anyone would balk at charging that commander with Treason.
Well, that is almost exactly what happened with Benghazi, but "the commander" is the President of the United States.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
Now, Republicans confirm that those changes came "from the Administration." Let me say something they are restrained (for a variety of reasons) from saying. Barack Obama made that decision. Barack Obama, the same man who mandated that references to "terror organization" and "terrorism" be scrubbed from FBI training manuals, chose to scrub the talking points of references to Al Qaida. Why he did this I can only speculate. Whatever his motive, however, the effect is the same: he aided our enemies by not sending help immediately to kill them and save as many American lives as possible, and then he provided them comfort when he refused to identify the attack as a terrorist attack, and waited nearly two weeks to send investigators to the compound.
Now, I've received some push-back on this "aid and comfort to the enemy" formulation, so let me illustrate it another way.
Let's say the US was in a war, and the Commander of a Forward Operating Base received an urgent distress call from a team in the field. This call was corroborated by surveillance from a drone in the air, and other assets were already in the area. Additionally, this commander had forces under his command he could order into the area, some of them would arrive in an hour, others after a few hours. Then let's say he chose not to send help. Okay, well, that's just dereliction of duty (which, by the way, should be enough to get the President impeached).
But let's go further. When he reports on the incident to his chain of command, he claims that he doesn't know what force was responsible for the attack, and hints that some completely unrelated event caused the fight. He then waits for two weeks while the bad guys get further and further away, giving them plenty of time to regroup and organize further attacks. Now he's lied to his superiors.
At that point, we're beyond mere "dereliction of duty," we've found direct, conscious choices which provided aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't think anyone would balk at charging that commander with Treason.
Well, that is almost exactly what happened with Benghazi, but "the commander" is the President of the United States.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Tax Hike Lie
While Mitt Romney was running for President, he kept making one mistake over and over (beyond any election-day specific mistakes, or mistakes about the lay of the political land). Every time the question of his tax plan would come up, he claimed he wanted to keep taxes 'revenue neutral' by 'closing loopholes.' In short, he wanted to do exactly what Barack Obama wants to do- keep taxes on everyone except "the rich" low, and raise taxes on those evil rich. The difference is that Obama said it outright, and Romney did not.
Part of this comes from a fallacy, too long accepted as fact, on the part of Republicans- the idea that tax cuts need to be "paid for." This should be laughed at, mocked, and ridiculed until no Democrat has the courage to say it ever again. Lowering marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. Every time that a Democrat or someone from the Media (BIRM) asks about "paying for tax cuts," the response should be, "They categorically pay for themselves. Decreased tax rates result in increased tax revenue."
Now, Republicans will be challenged on this. They'll receive push-back. But, as with so many things, the facts are on our side.
George W. Bush lowered tax rates, and revenue climbed. Maybe he's not the best example, because he spent too much.
Ronald Reagan lowered tax rates, and revenue climbed. He also "spent too much," but he had to deal with a Democrat House. But maybe he's not the best example either, since Democrats hated him so much.
John F. Kennedy lowered tax rates, and revenue climbed. I really like that one, because it tends to make Democrats apoplectic. They can't criticize him, because they've made JFK their patron saint. But neither will they concede that ground. It's fun watching their rhetorical gymnastics to get out of that bind.
Every single time someone says anything to the effect of "we have to raise revenue," the Republican answer must be, "Then History demands we lower tax rates."
Every. Single. Time.
Part of this comes from a fallacy, too long accepted as fact, on the part of Republicans- the idea that tax cuts need to be "paid for." This should be laughed at, mocked, and ridiculed until no Democrat has the courage to say it ever again. Lowering marginal tax rates increases tax revenue. Every time that a Democrat or someone from the Media (BIRM) asks about "paying for tax cuts," the response should be, "They categorically pay for themselves. Decreased tax rates result in increased tax revenue."
Now, Republicans will be challenged on this. They'll receive push-back. But, as with so many things, the facts are on our side.
George W. Bush lowered tax rates, and revenue climbed. Maybe he's not the best example, because he spent too much.
Ronald Reagan lowered tax rates, and revenue climbed. He also "spent too much," but he had to deal with a Democrat House. But maybe he's not the best example either, since Democrats hated him so much.
John F. Kennedy lowered tax rates, and revenue climbed. I really like that one, because it tends to make Democrats apoplectic. They can't criticize him, because they've made JFK their patron saint. But neither will they concede that ground. It's fun watching their rhetorical gymnastics to get out of that bind.
Every single time someone says anything to the effect of "we have to raise revenue," the Republican answer must be, "Then History demands we lower tax rates."
Every. Single. Time.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
President Obama: I Instructed Ambassador Rice To Lie About Benghazi
Shorter Obama: Impeach me, please.
So President Obama had a press conference today. As Ace explains it- he gave no real answers, but he did have time for "a smoghasbord of evasions and feigned outrage."
Here's the pull quote:
Now, Ace highlights a couple of things: that if President Obama is going to say "come after me, bro" then Senators McCain and Graham ought to say "Okay, we'll subpoena you for Friday." He also points out the President's typically passive language.
I want to highlight something else: Look at that formulation again. Susan Rice "made an appearance at the request of the White House." That would be President Obama, unless the physical White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC suddenly started talking. "...She gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her." In other words, despite the fact that we have documented that the White House knew before the terror attack was over that it was an Al Qaida linked terror attack, Ambassador Rice was given "intelligence" which indicated a YouTube video was to blame.
Now, I'm guessing that Susan Rice is not stupid. I'm guessing she, like everyone else with a frontal lobe thought, "Seriously, that's the official line?" And she did it anyway. She lied- it doesn't matter whether or not she knew what the truth was, she certainly knew it wasn't the line she'd been fed. She lied at the Presidents specific direction.
Then, the fact that other Administration officials supported this story- again, despite the fact we know know what the truth was, and knew even then what the truth wasn't- means that "the White House" (read: President Barack Hussein Obama) had given them that story and told them to repeat it. Not only did they repeat it, they repeated it under oath.
So add that to the list.
Barack Obama knew that the mission in Benghazi was woefully under-protected, and he did nothing.
Ambassador Chris Steven begged for more security, and Obama did nothing.
When the attack occurred, local support was ordered -twice- to "stand down."
When the attack occurred, a military response was never mounted, despite the fact that fighter planes could have arrived in an hour or less, and commandos in 3 hours or less.
When the attack occurred, Barack Obama WENT TO BED.
When questions started being asked, Barack Obama suborned perjury.
Okay, Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Graham, and McCain. You heard the man, go after him. When can we expect the articles of impeachment?
So President Obama had a press conference today. As Ace explains it- he gave no real answers, but he did have time for "a smoghasbord of evasions and feigned outrage."
Here's the pull quote:
"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous," President Obama said at a press conference on Wednesday.
Now, Ace highlights a couple of things: that if President Obama is going to say "come after me, bro" then Senators McCain and Graham ought to say "Okay, we'll subpoena you for Friday." He also points out the President's typically passive language.
I want to highlight something else: Look at that formulation again. Susan Rice "made an appearance at the request of the White House." That would be President Obama, unless the physical White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC suddenly started talking. "...She gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her." In other words, despite the fact that we have documented that the White House knew before the terror attack was over that it was an Al Qaida linked terror attack, Ambassador Rice was given "intelligence" which indicated a YouTube video was to blame.
Now, I'm guessing that Susan Rice is not stupid. I'm guessing she, like everyone else with a frontal lobe thought, "Seriously, that's the official line?" And she did it anyway. She lied- it doesn't matter whether or not she knew what the truth was, she certainly knew it wasn't the line she'd been fed. She lied at the Presidents specific direction.
Then, the fact that other Administration officials supported this story- again, despite the fact we know know what the truth was, and knew even then what the truth wasn't- means that "the White House" (read: President Barack Hussein Obama) had given them that story and told them to repeat it. Not only did they repeat it, they repeated it under oath.
So add that to the list.
Barack Obama knew that the mission in Benghazi was woefully under-protected, and he did nothing.
Ambassador Chris Steven begged for more security, and Obama did nothing.
When the attack occurred, local support was ordered -twice- to "stand down."
When the attack occurred, a military response was never mounted, despite the fact that fighter planes could have arrived in an hour or less, and commandos in 3 hours or less.
When the attack occurred, Barack Obama WENT TO BED.
When questions started being asked, Barack Obama suborned perjury.
Okay, Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Graham, and McCain. You heard the man, go after him. When can we expect the articles of impeachment?
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The Real Victims of the Petraeus Scandal
When the news of General Petraeus's resignation suddenly broke last week, and with the resulting Springerian Nightmare (I just made that up), I think the country is starting to lose sight of something important.
The "real" victims of General Petraeus are 4 Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and their families.
Because of the scandal, General Petraeus's testimony before Congress has been postponed- possibly indefinitely. Because of his infidelity, and the fact it was known for months prior, his judgement is in question and he was compromised from a security standpoint. This means that key questions may never be answered. It means that blame might be successfully shifted from President Obama (where, as chronicled here, it rightly belongs) to General Petraeus and the CIA (where it does not).
Because of the scandal, we may never know why the CIA operatives in Benghazi were given a stand down order. Was it because the CIA was operating a secret prison in Benghazi? I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense. Was it simply for political cover? We now may never know.
Another real victim of General Petraeus? Holly Petraeus, his wife. I have seen some of the most vile comments about her, both from liberal and conservative sources, and they are undeserved. There is no reason to speculate on "why" General Petraeus would violate his wedding vows and have an extended extramarital affair. "Why" does not matter. To lay any blame at the feet of Holly Petraeus is the worst form of blame-shifting (all the blame lays with Gen. Petraeus and his mistress) and misogyny.
The "real" victims of General Petraeus are 4 Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and their families.
Because of the scandal, General Petraeus's testimony before Congress has been postponed- possibly indefinitely. Because of his infidelity, and the fact it was known for months prior, his judgement is in question and he was compromised from a security standpoint. This means that key questions may never be answered. It means that blame might be successfully shifted from President Obama (where, as chronicled here, it rightly belongs) to General Petraeus and the CIA (where it does not).
Because of the scandal, we may never know why the CIA operatives in Benghazi were given a stand down order. Was it because the CIA was operating a secret prison in Benghazi? I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense. Was it simply for political cover? We now may never know.
Another real victim of General Petraeus? Holly Petraeus, his wife. I have seen some of the most vile comments about her, both from liberal and conservative sources, and they are undeserved. There is no reason to speculate on "why" General Petraeus would violate his wedding vows and have an extended extramarital affair. "Why" does not matter. To lay any blame at the feet of Holly Petraeus is the worst form of blame-shifting (all the blame lays with Gen. Petraeus and his mistress) and misogyny.
Jerry Springer Goes to the Pentagon
Imagine you turn on the TV and you see the following. Two kind of skeevy looking elderly dudes, and their wives and mistresses. One the mistress of one outed the relationship between the other skeevy dude and his mistress. While someone was digging into that, they discovered the affair between skeevy dude number 2 and his mistress. Oh, and mistress number two has a crazy (as in: denied custody of her children by a judge because she was so crazy) twin sister.
Would you expect to see this on:
A) The Evening News
B) The Jerry Springer Show
If you answered "B" you would be wrong. This almost exactly what happened in the case of General Petraeus and General Allen. Except that instead of ruining a couple of lives and making them laughing stocks, a la Jerry Springer, this affair compromised National Security and (quite likely) cost thousands of good men and women their lives.
Now, a lot of pixels are being used, and ink being spilled, over this whole sordid affair. Most of it seems to be centering on whose "fault" it is. I have not seen very much spent at all on what effect this has had, and will have on the Intelligence and Military communities.
Perhaps most superficially, there is the PR nightmare. Both of these men were highly decorated, highly respected Generals. General Petraeus had been in President Obama's Cabinet since the beginning of his Administration, first over the Pentagon and then swapping with Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Prior to that, he'd been the author of the COIN "Surge" strategy which largely completed our mission in Iraq. General Allen was the head commander of our forces in Afghanistan, and was being considered for promotion. That these men are now embroiled in, as Gabe from Ace of Spades puts it, "a love Pentagon," makes this a terrible blow to the trust Americans place in military leadership.
More importantly, what practical effects did this have on Intelligence and Military operations? What things were missed because these men were getting some strange on the side? How many lives were lost because Gens. Petraeus and Allen were not paying attention to their duties? What cost was there to National Security? After all, a powerful man in an affair is a compromised man.
I think these things need investigation. And only one man can get to the bottom of it. Only one man in America has shown the ability to sort through this kind of back-and-forth recriminations.
Jerry. Springer.
Would you expect to see this on:
A) The Evening News
B) The Jerry Springer Show
If you answered "B" you would be wrong. This almost exactly what happened in the case of General Petraeus and General Allen. Except that instead of ruining a couple of lives and making them laughing stocks, a la Jerry Springer, this affair compromised National Security and (quite likely) cost thousands of good men and women their lives.
Now, a lot of pixels are being used, and ink being spilled, over this whole sordid affair. Most of it seems to be centering on whose "fault" it is. I have not seen very much spent at all on what effect this has had, and will have on the Intelligence and Military communities.
Perhaps most superficially, there is the PR nightmare. Both of these men were highly decorated, highly respected Generals. General Petraeus had been in President Obama's Cabinet since the beginning of his Administration, first over the Pentagon and then swapping with Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Prior to that, he'd been the author of the COIN "Surge" strategy which largely completed our mission in Iraq. General Allen was the head commander of our forces in Afghanistan, and was being considered for promotion. That these men are now embroiled in, as Gabe from Ace of Spades puts it, "a love Pentagon," makes this a terrible blow to the trust Americans place in military leadership.
More importantly, what practical effects did this have on Intelligence and Military operations? What things were missed because these men were getting some strange on the side? How many lives were lost because Gens. Petraeus and Allen were not paying attention to their duties? What cost was there to National Security? After all, a powerful man in an affair is a compromised man.
I think these things need investigation. And only one man can get to the bottom of it. Only one man in America has shown the ability to sort through this kind of back-and-forth recriminations.
Jerry. Springer.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Union Democrats- This is what you asked for.
So Boeing is laying off 30% of its executive team due, if you read between the lines, to sequestration. Funny. They were SUPPOSED to announce those layoffs a couple of weeks ago, due to the Democrat created WARN act. But Obama's Department of Labor decided that they shouldn't release that before the election- it might have hurt Obama's re-election chances. So Boeing feigned ignorance, just like Lockheed did.
"Oh, no, the Government says we won't be hurt due to sequestration, and the Government wouldn't lie to us, would they?"
So Boeing pretended that the Government could suspend the laws of mathematics, and failed to issue the layoff notifications on time. Now, miraculously, the laws of math have reasserted themselves, those scamps. Suddenly, Boeing will be affected by sequestration cuts. Imagine that.
Look out, union laborers. Right now it's the executive team. That won't be enough. Your turn will come.
Just remember that you asked for it.
Update: A previous version of this post said Boeing was laying off 40% of it's executive team. The correct number from the article is 30%.
"Oh, no, the Government says we won't be hurt due to sequestration, and the Government wouldn't lie to us, would they?"
So Boeing pretended that the Government could suspend the laws of mathematics, and failed to issue the layoff notifications on time. Now, miraculously, the laws of math have reasserted themselves, those scamps. Suddenly, Boeing will be affected by sequestration cuts. Imagine that.
Look out, union laborers. Right now it's the executive team. That won't be enough. Your turn will come.
Just remember that you asked for it.
Update: A previous version of this post said Boeing was laying off 40% of it's executive team. The correct number from the article is 30%.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Benghazi Files: A Deadly Delay
You've probably seen the newly released CBS video from 9/12 in which Barack Obama is directly questioned about his unwillingness to call the Benghazi Attack an act of terror. Many are criticizing CBS for not releasing the clip earlier- a clear attempt to cover up for the President. This criticism it right and proper, but I want to focus on something mentioned in this corresponding FoxNews report.
So a whopping 4 officer team of "reinforcements" arrive in Benghazi at 1:15 AM. They are then delayed for over 3 hours while Libyan and American officials dither and bicker about "permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and... a clear mission plan." Fox focuses on the fact that they already knew the culprits were Ansar al-Shariah, an Al Qaida linked terror group. Based on the information chronicled on this blog, I'm much more furious about a three hour delay.
By that time, Ambassador Stevens was almost certainly already dead. Certainly he was believed to be dead. That three hour delay allowed Ansar al-Shariah to mount an attack on the CIA compound where former SEALs Woods and Doherty were eventually also killed. Now, recall, fighters from Signolla Air Base in Sicily could have arrived within one hour. Commandos could have been on the ground in three hours. That means, had the Administration not made the active choice not to respond militarily to an assault on our Ambassador, that while the Administration and Libyan officials were dickering about the fate of the CIA team at the Benghazi airport, US Military resources could have already dealt with the problem.
All of this because Barack Obama believed that treating this action as the terrorist attack it was would have been a political liability for him.
1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don't leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.
So a whopping 4 officer team of "reinforcements" arrive in Benghazi at 1:15 AM. They are then delayed for over 3 hours while Libyan and American officials dither and bicker about "permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and... a clear mission plan." Fox focuses on the fact that they already knew the culprits were Ansar al-Shariah, an Al Qaida linked terror group. Based on the information chronicled on this blog, I'm much more furious about a three hour delay.
By that time, Ambassador Stevens was almost certainly already dead. Certainly he was believed to be dead. That three hour delay allowed Ansar al-Shariah to mount an attack on the CIA compound where former SEALs Woods and Doherty were eventually also killed. Now, recall, fighters from Signolla Air Base in Sicily could have arrived within one hour. Commandos could have been on the ground in three hours. That means, had the Administration not made the active choice not to respond militarily to an assault on our Ambassador, that while the Administration and Libyan officials were dickering about the fate of the CIA team at the Benghazi airport, US Military resources could have already dealt with the problem.
All of this because Barack Obama believed that treating this action as the terrorist attack it was would have been a political liability for him.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Benghazi Files: State Department Never Requested DoD Support
This actually came out yesterday from the Daily Beast. This is just a short post, because it links back to one yesterday, wherein it was revealed that the Embassy in Tripoli did attempt to notify Washington, DC immediately, but were unable to raise help.
The Military is saying the reason they didn't go in was that they were never requested to go in. Typically, it is the duty of the Ambassador to request assistance. In this case, he could not. So it then fell to the deputy chief of mission- who did make the request. However, that request has to go through State Department channels. Considering we know that the Administration was monitoring the whole situation, that means (once again) that President Obama knew of the decision not to forward the request to DoD, and chose not to over-ride it. As the article points out:
One problem with that idea, though. We know that, during the second (actually a continuation of the first) fire-fight at the CIA compound, repeated requests for support were made. So the military saying they weren't asked to support the actual Mission compound is technically correct, but if they are suggesting they never went to Benghazi because they never received any request, they're lying.
And notice the obfuscation: "the State Department never requested." Not, the State Department never did, but the CIA contractors did. And it was actively denied them three separate times.
I simply do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn. Barack Obama issued active orders which condemned four Americans to death.
The Military is saying the reason they didn't go in was that they were never requested to go in. Typically, it is the duty of the Ambassador to request assistance. In this case, he could not. So it then fell to the deputy chief of mission- who did make the request. However, that request has to go through State Department channels. Considering we know that the Administration was monitoring the whole situation, that means (once again) that President Obama knew of the decision not to forward the request to DoD, and chose not to over-ride it. As the article points out:
The president, however, would have the final say as to whether or not to send in the military. By 11 p.m. Benghazi time, 90 minutes after the assault began on the U.S. mission, Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the attack. NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said the president “ordered Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies” at that meeting.
One problem with that idea, though. We know that, during the second (actually a continuation of the first) fire-fight at the CIA compound, repeated requests for support were made. So the military saying they weren't asked to support the actual Mission compound is technically correct, but if they are suggesting they never went to Benghazi because they never received any request, they're lying.
And notice the obfuscation: "the State Department never requested." Not, the State Department never did, but the CIA contractors did. And it was actively denied them three separate times.
I simply do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn. Barack Obama issued active orders which condemned four Americans to death.
Treason: Active Choices, Not Mere Negligence
On September 11, 2012, Islamic Terrorists from a group affiliated with Al Qaida attacked the US Mission in Benghazi, Libya. They attacked using automatic rifles (including AK-47s), bombs, and mortars.
Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi instead of Tripoli to meet with leaders from other nations, including a Turkish General. We do not know the purpose of those meetings. We do know that when shots were first fired, Ambassador Stevens called the Tripoli Embassy, who then attempted to call Washington, DC, but could not get through for some time.
Once Washington finally did pick up the phone, a host of things should have happened that didn't. Among those was the convening of the Counterterrorism Security Group, an interagency coordination and control group with knowledge of what assets would be available to assist any given area during a terrorist attack.
"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."
According to CBS, the CSG was not convened because more senior officials, with less direct knowledge, attempted to direct the response.
As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."
Without that group, the response faltered early, and only got worse as the night continued.
"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."
This yet further paints a picture of active choices which were made to circumvent the normal military response of "leave no man behind." It just makes sense that you would rely on experts on terrorist attacks for coordination of the immediate response. Even if it didn't "just make sense," it also happens to be a Presidential Directive.
The official says a protocol set forth in a classified presidential directive calls for the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) to be convened in the event of a possible terrorist attack. According to a public military document, the directive was designed to "synchronize the efforts of all the government agencies that have a role to play in the Global War on Terrorism.
If it was a Presidential Directive, then the only person who could override it is the President. Only the President could have chosen to reject the very possibility ("event of a possible terrorist attack") of a terror attack and refuse to convene the CSG. Only the President could have made the order that the Senior Administration officials, and not the CSG, would attempt to coordinate the response.
This was not mere Negligence. This was a series of active choices made by the President and his team, sentencing four brave Americans to their needless and vain deaths.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Treason: Embassy Tripoli Called for help During DC Working Hours
H/T: PJ Tatler
Representative Jason Chaffetz was on with Greta van Susteren last night talking about Benghazi. Now, both Greta and Rep. Chaffetz are much more restrained than I tend to be, but, once again, we have people who "Know About This Stuff" who are saying the same things I've been saying. They stop short of "treason," because they think it's disrespectful or over-the-top or some such. But they make same case.
Specifically, Rep. Chaffetz relayed this anecdote, heretofore unknown:
Let's break that down. Rep Chaffetz was on a fact finding mission to Libya after the murder of Ambassador Stevens. There, he spoke with Gregory Hicks from the Tripoli Embassy. Mr. Hicks says that he started calling Washington, DC "shortly after 9 PM" (Note: I believe this is a transcription error, and that the actual time was shortly after 9:40 PM). Now, that was either 9:40 Washington, DC time, or 9:40 Libya time- but which is it?
It seem more logical that it would be Libya time for three reasons. First, Mr. Hicks would have been talking about local time. When he looked at his phone (and probably clock, given the lateness of the hour), he would have been thinking in local time. He would almost certainly have relayed the story the same way. Second, it is unlikely that Rep. Chaffetz would convert the times on-air. Among other things, it would require that he have two times in his head at the same time, which could lead to confusion. For another, he was relating the story, not giving an "official" report. So local time seems more reasonable that way. Finally, the time difference between Tripoli and Washington, DC is pretty close to 6 hours. We know the attack occurred on the evening of September 11, not the morning of September 12. Six hours after 9 PM would be 3 AM, on 9/12.
So, Libya local time seems most likely. But that means that the Libyan mission started calling for help no later than 4 PM, Washington, DC time. People would still have been at work. You wouldn't even be interrupting dinner. There is absolutely no reason that he shouldn't have been able to contact those "mechanisms."
That alone, would just prove the Criminal Negligence, that I first believed. That, alone, should be an impeachable offense for the President. But then we look further in the interview:
Now, this seems to be saying, "Oh, the President didn't give an order." I expect this is Rep. Chaffetz hedging. Here's why: we know from multiple other sources that the first reaction of the Military would be to move in. We know that the White House was monitoring the attack in the Situation Room. We know that a "stand-down" order was given, not once, but twice. We know that assistance was requested and denied three times.
Those all required specific orders. The default military position would be to rescue our personnel. Other sources say that the military has plans, and practices drills, for exactly the kind of situation that occurred in Benghazi. So in the absence of orders, a rescue mission would have been mounted. It was only under specific orders that our military would not have done so. And the ultimate authority and responsibility for those orders rests with the President. The President who was monitoring in the Situation room. The President who went to bed with the status of our Ambassador still unknown. The President who then jetted out to Las Vegas for a fund raiser. The President who then lied for more than a week to claim that the attack was a "spontaneous event" caused by a YouTube video.
That's not Criminal Negligence, that's Murder. That's providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Representative Jason Chaffetz was on with Greta van Susteren last night talking about Benghazi. Now, both Greta and Rep. Chaffetz are much more restrained than I tend to be, but, once again, we have people who "Know About This Stuff" who are saying the same things I've been saying. They stop short of "treason," because they think it's disrespectful or over-the-top or some such. But they make same case.
Specifically, Rep. Chaffetz relayed this anecdote, heretofore unknown:
CHAFFETZ: You know, he related this story which I haven't shared before. He's a good man. His name's Gregory Hicks. And I -- I think he's trying to do the right thing.
He said that shortly after 9: 0 PM, what happened is his phone rang. And he didn't recognize the number, so he didn't answer it. Then it rang again. Again, he didn't answer it because he didn't recognize the number.
But then, given the persistence, he did answer it. It was Ambassador Stevens. And Ambassador Stevens was saying, We're under attack. We're under attack.
Now, I can't say that he told me specifically that he was asking for help, but that's kind of what I -- I read into it. He hung up the phone. He immediately called in to Washington, D.C., to trigger all the mechanisms that needed to be put on, and then he wasn't able to contact them. And there were hours and hours where we didn't know where our ambassador was.
But the trauma, the -- the real-life trauma that he went through -- I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was -- it was hard to listen to. He's -- he's gone through a lot, but he did a great job.
Let's break that down. Rep Chaffetz was on a fact finding mission to Libya after the murder of Ambassador Stevens. There, he spoke with Gregory Hicks from the Tripoli Embassy. Mr. Hicks says that he started calling Washington, DC "shortly after 9 PM" (Note: I believe this is a transcription error, and that the actual time was shortly after 9:40 PM). Now, that was either 9:40 Washington, DC time, or 9:40 Libya time- but which is it?
It seem more logical that it would be Libya time for three reasons. First, Mr. Hicks would have been talking about local time. When he looked at his phone (and probably clock, given the lateness of the hour), he would have been thinking in local time. He would almost certainly have relayed the story the same way. Second, it is unlikely that Rep. Chaffetz would convert the times on-air. Among other things, it would require that he have two times in his head at the same time, which could lead to confusion. For another, he was relating the story, not giving an "official" report. So local time seems more reasonable that way. Finally, the time difference between Tripoli and Washington, DC is pretty close to 6 hours. We know the attack occurred on the evening of September 11, not the morning of September 12. Six hours after 9 PM would be 3 AM, on 9/12.
So, Libya local time seems most likely. But that means that the Libyan mission started calling for help no later than 4 PM, Washington, DC time. People would still have been at work. You wouldn't even be interrupting dinner. There is absolutely no reason that he shouldn't have been able to contact those "mechanisms."
That alone, would just prove the Criminal Negligence, that I first believed. That, alone, should be an impeachable offense for the President. But then we look further in the interview:
CHAFFETZ: Yes, Buck McKeon, in fact, I chatted with him this morning. He's chairman of Armed Services, doing a great job. And his letter, in essence, says, Mr. President, you said you gave a direct order to protect all of those people and make sure that we secure those people in Benghazi, but the military does -- you know, needs an order from you.
I talked specifically to General Ham. He's a four-star general. He told me personally he did not get a directive from the White House from the president of the United States to engage in the firefight to help protect those people.
Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you're doing everything you can to protect the people in Benghazi, when we're under attack, a firefight that starts at 9:40 at night, goes until the wee hours of the morning, and say you did everything when the military did not engage.
Now, this seems to be saying, "Oh, the President didn't give an order." I expect this is Rep. Chaffetz hedging. Here's why: we know from multiple other sources that the first reaction of the Military would be to move in. We know that the White House was monitoring the attack in the Situation Room. We know that a "stand-down" order was given, not once, but twice. We know that assistance was requested and denied three times.
Those all required specific orders. The default military position would be to rescue our personnel. Other sources say that the military has plans, and practices drills, for exactly the kind of situation that occurred in Benghazi. So in the absence of orders, a rescue mission would have been mounted. It was only under specific orders that our military would not have done so. And the ultimate authority and responsibility for those orders rests with the President. The President who was monitoring in the Situation room. The President who went to bed with the status of our Ambassador still unknown. The President who then jetted out to Las Vegas for a fund raiser. The President who then lied for more than a week to claim that the attack was a "spontaneous event" caused by a YouTube video.
That's not Criminal Negligence, that's Murder. That's providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Treason: Expert Testimony
I've written here why I believe that Barack Obama is a traitor to the United States. I've almost certainly made some people uncomfortable by saying it so bluntly, but I believe it's necessary to call a spade a spade, and not just a "manual digging tool."
With more evidence, though, and from a much more credible source than me, is an article in the Washington Times. Its author is Admiral James A. Lyons (Ret), the former commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Fleet and senior US military representative to the United Nations. It's safe to say he knows of what he speaks.
And what does he speak?
What I've already said here numerous times: They knew. They watched. They didn't send help.
But that's not enough for treason. That could simply be gutlessness, or "vapor lock" preventing a good order. No, we need something active- some active decision to prevent help to make it up to treason (emphasis mine).
With all due respect to the Admiral, we don't need to know who made that decision. We don't need to know who made the decision, because we do know the White House was monitoring the situation. That means that, whoever made the call, Barack Obama agreed with it. Barack Obama agreed with the active order not to provide support to our own personnel under attack.
His last paragraph begins this way (again, emphasis mine):
Indeed he's right. Someone high up in the administration did make that decision. But the person who ultimately made the decision- the one setting the rules such that anyone would even think for a moment of forbidding assistance- is the President. Moreover, even if someone else made that decision "on their own," the President was there an knew about that order. Had it been one with which he disagreed, he could have countermanded it. He did not.
Barack Obama made the conscious choice to prevent an operation which would have saved at least two lives, and possibly 4 that night. Barack Obama made the conscious decision to favor terrorists attacking our Benghazi mission over the lives of our own personnel.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
With more evidence, though, and from a much more credible source than me, is an article in the Washington Times. Its author is Admiral James A. Lyons (Ret), the former commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Fleet and senior US military representative to the United Nations. It's safe to say he knows of what he speaks.
And what does he speak?
Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.
What I've already said here numerous times: They knew. They watched. They didn't send help.
But that's not enough for treason. That could simply be gutlessness, or "vapor lock" preventing a good order. No, we need something active- some active decision to prevent help to make it up to treason (emphasis mine).
I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.
With all due respect to the Admiral, we don't need to know who made that decision. We don't need to know who made the decision, because we do know the White House was monitoring the situation. That means that, whoever made the call, Barack Obama agreed with it. Barack Obama agreed with the active order not to provide support to our own personnel under attack.
His last paragraph begins this way (again, emphasis mine):
Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable.
Indeed he's right. Someone high up in the administration did make that decision. But the person who ultimately made the decision- the one setting the rules such that anyone would even think for a moment of forbidding assistance- is the President. Moreover, even if someone else made that decision "on their own," the President was there an knew about that order. Had it been one with which he disagreed, he could have countermanded it. He did not.
Barack Obama made the conscious choice to prevent an operation which would have saved at least two lives, and possibly 4 that night. Barack Obama made the conscious decision to favor terrorists attacking our Benghazi mission over the lives of our own personnel.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Treason: Obama Ordered Ambassador Stevens's Death
Many have said, including me, that Barack Obama "let Ambassador Stevens die." That, based on currently available information, is not true. Based on what we now know, Barack Obama ordered his death. Ambassador Stevens was not murdered, he was summarily executed.
This sounds over the top. As I type it, I cannot believe that I am seriously saying that a sitting US President used terrorists to execute an Ambassador. But he did, and I am.
To prove that I'm not just crazy, though, I'll let you follow this a little more slowly.
First we have the information that Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for more security for Benghazi. I documented that here myself.
Next, only Hillary Clinton or the President could have waived denied that extra security and waived the basic security requirements. Given that Mr. Obama wanted us to believe that Libya was a foreign policy success for him, we have ample reason to believe that he either ordered the waiver, or was at least informed of it and gave it his okay.
Further, we now know that the CIA was ordered to "Stand Down" and not assist when the temporary compound was under attack. Two former SEALs disobeyed those orders, saved many lives, and lost their own. During that time, they painted the very mortar which killed them with a targeting laser and requested air support which was also denied. Update: That air support was ALREADY IN THE AIR and flying overhead. An AC-130 gunship was in the air and denied permission to fire.
Something to note here. Our servicemen don't target paint something when a strike will take hours. When something is that far away, the missiles are launched first, and then the Soldiers, Marines, or SEALs use the laser in the last minutes. So the SEALs had to believe that support was minutes, not hours, away.
Finally, there are reports that Barack Obama has (or at least had) a standing order for our forces not to engage, and that only he could override that order. If that's true it is especially damning, but it is not necessary for my logic. I don't need that, because I know that Mr. Obama knew about the attack. I know that it was being shown, live, in the Situation Room in the White House. If a request for support had come in, and someone else had denied it, Mr. Obama was right there to override that denial. By not doing so, he was approving the decision not to save our personnel.
"Let them die" is passive. It would mean he hadn't made a choice. For Barack Obama to have "let" Ambassador Stevens die, there would have had to have been no decisions made, and the problem would then be mere incompetence. That is not the case here. Direct orders were given for the CIA to "stand down" and then requested air support was specifically denied. Those are active choices.
By making the active choice to deny support to the Benghazi compound, Barack Obama all but directly ordered the execution of Ambassador Stevens.
Barack Obama is a traitor. He should be immediately impeached, then tried on charges of treason.
This sounds over the top. As I type it, I cannot believe that I am seriously saying that a sitting US President used terrorists to execute an Ambassador. But he did, and I am.
To prove that I'm not just crazy, though, I'll let you follow this a little more slowly.
First we have the information that Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for more security for Benghazi. I documented that here myself.
Next, only Hillary Clinton or the President could have waived denied that extra security and waived the basic security requirements. Given that Mr. Obama wanted us to believe that Libya was a foreign policy success for him, we have ample reason to believe that he either ordered the waiver, or was at least informed of it and gave it his okay.
Further, we now know that the CIA was ordered to "Stand Down" and not assist when the temporary compound was under attack. Two former SEALs disobeyed those orders, saved many lives, and lost their own. During that time, they painted the very mortar which killed them with a targeting laser and requested air support which was also denied. Update: That air support was ALREADY IN THE AIR and flying overhead. An AC-130 gunship was in the air and denied permission to fire.
Something to note here. Our servicemen don't target paint something when a strike will take hours. When something is that far away, the missiles are launched first, and then the Soldiers, Marines, or SEALs use the laser in the last minutes. So the SEALs had to believe that support was minutes, not hours, away.
Finally, there are reports that Barack Obama has (or at least had) a standing order for our forces not to engage, and that only he could override that order. If that's true it is especially damning, but it is not necessary for my logic. I don't need that, because I know that Mr. Obama knew about the attack. I know that it was being shown, live, in the Situation Room in the White House. If a request for support had come in, and someone else had denied it, Mr. Obama was right there to override that denial. By not doing so, he was approving the decision not to save our personnel.
"Let them die" is passive. It would mean he hadn't made a choice. For Barack Obama to have "let" Ambassador Stevens die, there would have had to have been no decisions made, and the problem would then be mere incompetence. That is not the case here. Direct orders were given for the CIA to "stand down" and then requested air support was specifically denied. Those are active choices.
By making the active choice to deny support to the Benghazi compound, Barack Obama all but directly ordered the execution of Ambassador Stevens.
Barack Obama is a traitor. He should be immediately impeached, then tried on charges of treason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)