Thursday, December 5, 2013

Milking an election

When Illinois State Senator Jim Oberweis announced his reasons to seek the Republican nomination for United States Senate, he said:

      “… our party does not have a viable candidate with name recognition
and finances and I hate to give Durbin a pass.”

I find this elitist and condescending attitude among professional politicians so very insulting, that they think they are the only ones who can represent the people.

First, most anyone can win--if they have the right message and backing of the people. The resources to win will follow that candidate.

Second, to say that someone like Doug Truax, a former Army officer and Ranger doesn’t have what it takes to win is very misinformed. Have you ever heard him speak? Do you know what it takes to be an Army Ranger? They were the ones who were trapped in Mogadishu Somalia and fought off thousands of gunmen; who parachuted into Taliban-held territory in Kandahar; who regularly die in training exercises. In fact, 4 Ranger candidates died in Florida in 1995 by hypothermia. Why? Because Rangers don’t quit.  They will do whatever it takes to complete their Ranger objective. I hardly think he would “give Durbin a pass." As an aside, Mr. Oberweis, after 20 years in the USAF, I’ve also accomplished a few difficult things in my life.

The professional politicians are the ones who have brought us to this point; if we keep electing the same people, we will get the same result. There will be no improvement as they make deals, vote for bills they haven’t read and enrich themselves at our expense. My goal was to give people a clear Conservative choice. To offer a new direction, to put people above political party and policy over partisanship.

 “Big Jim” certainly has experience in seeking elective office, running for the U.S. Senate in 2002 and again in 2004, then Governor in 2006, US Representative in 2008, and finally being elected to the Illinois 25th district (Aurora) just last year. Apparently he is much too big and important to represent the people in Aurora, and needs to be in Washington DC.  My only question for you, Mr. Oberweis, is what do you want to be when you grow up?

Monday, June 24, 2013

Broken Will

The Marco-Durbin-gang of 8 “immigration bill” is just terrible and delusional in so many ways. It is an abdication of the first orders of the government of a free people: Protect the citizens and ensure their rights. President Obama said that we are a “nation of immigrants and the rule of law”; he got that half right. I keep hearing that we must create a “pathway to citizenship.” What, we don’t have ceremonies that include taking an oath for new citizens? What some want is special treatment for certain people. While people who follow the law languish for years awaiting legal status, we are to grant that privilege overnight to millions who flout our laws. I have a problem accepting the fairness of that. There is also a fallacy that everyone who comes here want to become citizens; this whole new law is built around such flawed reasoning.

          We do not have a “broken” immigration system; we have one where some laws are ignored and others selectively enforced. Sanctuary cities and even sanctuary states thrive while Arizona is told to cease and desist in their enforcement of immigration laws. If there are problems, they can be addressed in fewer than 1,000 pages. The solution proposed in this new megabill is to write a new law to enforce current law. In 2006, Congress directed that some 700 miles of fencing would be built along the Southern border; they stopped around mile marker 36. If Government refused to enforce the law before, what makes you think they will do so afterwards? In  fact, the Secretary of Homeland Security is not even require to enhance border security.

          Key points of the new law:

·        Self-identify to authorities that you are here illegally; go “to the end of the line”; give up healthcare and welfare benefits.

What incentive is there to gain “legal status”, when you can continue to receive benefits without fear that anyone will harass you?

·        Learn English.

This would never be enforced. Are we really going to deport those who fail this requirement? As a policy, I find it nativist and discriminatory anyway. Immigrants should still be required to pass a citizenship test, and all official Federal government acts should be done in English; however I oppose forcing the English language on those who choose not to learn or lack the aptitude to learn.

·        Must have a job.

Except for--anything. This provision is filled with exclusions and can be waived anyway.

We cannot have open borders with an unfettered welfare state. The new immigrants will certainly undercut wages and contribute to our high unemployment rate.

·        Pay a fine and back taxes.

Who is going to assess the taxes, and based on what? And if someone refuses to pay? There are no enforcement mechanisms.


I think it is unconscionable that we allow criminals to stroll across the border at will to terrorize those who we have welcomed legally. I am of mind that many immigrants have come here for safety and to leave behind the lawlessness of their previous country. This bill allows those with up to two DUI’s to claim legal status. There is no telling how many gang members and criminals this will grant amnesty to, and then we won’t deport them.

It is fanciful to think that those who have broken our laws, taken advantage of our welfare system, and fly the flag of their home country will suddenly become patriotic, responsible Citizens. I am ALL FOR Legal immigrants. I welcome and commend those who wish to come here and be part of the American society. Those who have endured hardships and have become citizens are some of the most loyal Americans anywhere. Whatever we do, it should be for the best interests of the United States; this “reform” measure offers no benefits. Secure the damn border FIRST in the interest of national Security and safety. Then we can talk.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Benghazi Betrayal

Some thoughts on the Benghazi attacks and subsequent fact suppression.

First, we are continuously surprised when we are attacked:
December 7th; Korea, 1950; USS Pueblo; USS Cole; Khobar Towers; African Embassy bombings; Mogadishu, Somalia; September 11th, 2001; September 11th, 2012.

Besides being surprised, our response plan is ineffective or nonexistent and resources are not available.
We just think we can just go anywhere and be safe. We ignore history, however, which tells us otherwise.

Having some experience in air support, and as part of a NATO affiliated organization, I have knowledge of military assets.

v The United States had ample warnings that the Benghazi area was dangerous: in the year preceding the September 11th attack, there were more than 200 “security incidents.” The United Kingdom and the Red Cross deemed the area too dangerous and pulled out of Benghazi. However, Secretary of State Clinton wanted a permanent presence there. Ambassador Stevens, like the good soldier, said he would “make it happen.”

Then the attack and deflection of responsibility.

v We learned that Military forces in Tripoli were ready to deploy, but were twice told to stay in place—the infamous “stand-down” orders.

During “testimony” in February, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey wrote:

§  We positioned our forces in a way that was informed by and consistent with available threat estimates.”

§  “Our military was appropriately responsive.”

§  “We did what our posture and capabilities allowed.”

§  “This does not mean we accept the status quo as sufficient in this new security environment”

1.  The threats were well known, but ignored.

2.  The military response was non-existent--I hardly call that “appropriate” when Americans are dying and there was no way to know when attacks would  end.

3.  If you did (nothing) “what the posture and capabilities allowed”, then you were negligent.

4.  “New Security environment”? You mean since September 11th, 2001? More than a decade ago? ?

General Dempsey further said that forces were not sent because the State Department didn't ask for them. However, the on-site commander--acting Ambassador Hicks-- did ask for help. Dempsey added that     

“there simply was not enough time, given the speed of the attacks, for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."

Completely irrelevant and easy to say after the fact--no one could say how long the battle would last, and if all American personnel were going to be overrun.

On October 25th, 2012, Secretary of Defense Panetta gave his excuses:

There’s a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place”

So that’s the standard now? Send American forces into a war zone--then when things go bad, deny them support? When can we ever deploy forces?

“Also, the Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya --a sovereign country --without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host nation.”

Let me think about that. We bombed Libya for months without their permission, toppled Kadhafi, but we can’t go in to Save Americans? Besides, when foreign forces are attacking our diplomatic missions, they are attacking American real estate--so any “sovereign” issues are invalidated, to my mind.


During Congressional testimony on February 7th 2013, Panetta said that fighter aircraft were not in the vicinity and would have required at least nine to 12 hours to deploy.
Panetta, you are the Secretary of Defense. If that is how your organization is set up, then you are negligent. Flight time from Aviano, Italy is about 3 hours. Signalla and Tripoli, about 2 hours.

“Even if aircraft could have arrived quickly, the chaos would have prevented them from getting the accurate information they needed to hit the right targets”.

How the hell do you know that?? You Didn’t Even Try.

Senator Kelly Ayotte asked General Dempsey why F-16 jets in Aviano, Italy, weren't sent to Libya.

“This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert. They're there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as we looked at the timeline, it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, Senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job.”

So United States Air Force F-16’s are “part of NATO”-- to keep Italy safe from invasion--But Cannot Protect Americans???

TWENTY Hours to get an F-16 airborne?? Total BS!! Raise the red BS flag!!!

Let me tell you how it works in the Military. A commander says to a subordinate,

“Make it Happen.” And it Will; Get; Done. Simple as that. If given the order and the assets--there were planes and pilots available--the Military will get the job done. PERIOD. Problem is, they were Never Asked. If you recall, during the original attacks in September 2001, National Guard aircraft were airborne within an hour of tasking. National Guard!! And the Secretary of Defense and The CJCS are telling us that front-line NATO fighters cannot be over target in less than 20 hours?? TOTAL BS.

Further, Gen Dempsey asserts that the F-16 was “the wrong tool for the job.”

Huh? You know, you use what is available. The “tool” is not so much dependent on the platform, but on the capabilities of the pilot and the controllers on the ground. In Afghanistan, overflights (known as “shows of force”) are frequently used and are often effective in disrupting attacks. Regardless--just because we don’t know how the aircraft can be used, doesn’t mean we don’t send anything. Or do we? Is this the new standard of “supporting” those we put in harm’s way?
On May 8th, the number two man in Libya, Gregory Hicks, told Congress that he was told by the military attaché that the nearest fighter planes were at Aviano and that it would take 2 to 3 hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from there.

The F-16s would only need tanker support for a return flight. They would just have to land in-country or nearby. If fuel was a problem, they could have been fitted with external tanks. It would be beyond belief that a NATO base does not have external fuel tanks available.
Leon Panetta claimed that there were no "undue delays" in decision making and there was no denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders when the attack happened. The Accountability Review Board (ARB) asserted that they “found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders.”
Those assertions directly contradicted testimony from Gregory Hicks who said he and the military decided that a team of special-operations forces in Tripoli should go. But the team was told to stand down (twice.) Hicks said he believed the order came from the military.

He further related that a lieutenant colonel told him: "This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military."
Panetta said that President Obama ordered the Defense Department to respond with "all available DOD assets”.
It would appear that President Obama’s orders were ignored.

We want to know: who gave the order to deny support to those on the ground in Benghazi?

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Protecting the Weak

This is what welfare benefits were meant to protect---Men staying at home to study explosives while their wives go out and work. From the Weekly Standard:

"Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned," reports the Boston Herald.

"State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter. The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.
"In addition, both of Tsarnaev’s parents received benefits, and accused brother bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were recipients through their parents when they were younger, according to the state."

Sunday, April 21, 2013

the "J" word

The media has been flummoxed to explain why the Boston Bombers targeted the Marathon. The answer is simple.
To participate in Jihad.
The media has been showing us all kinds of pictures, of them as friends, boxer, school life; Oh look, CNN has discovered wrestling pictures! You know, the investigators identified the bombers with the help of pictures that showed their pleased expressions after the bombs detonated. Wouldn't you rather see those pictures?
It is illuminating to note that the family is ethnic Chechen, the people who perpetrated the Beslan massacre. You should learn about that atrocity to know what is possible here.
Remember--there are no "innocent civilians" in Jihad.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Innocents to the Slaughter

When President Obama had a press conference to speak on the Boston bombings, he used the weasel word "innocent":
“Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror.”

If targeting civilians is immoral, why use the qualifier "innocent"?
More striking, reading his words does not convey his stumbling over the word "innocent."
It is worth watching here:

This is why he can still be good friends with Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers and not consider him a terrorist, because Ayers was targeting the "military/industrial complex"--any bystanders were collatoral damage and probably deserved what they got by associating with military personnel.
"Palestinians" and Arabs do not target "innocent civilians", because any "zionist" is an occupier and considered a combatant.
The University of Colorado professor, "Walking Eagle" called the fatalities in the World Trade Center "little Eichmans" and therefore legitimate targets.
Jihadists can justify killing unbelievers, since infidels are not "innocent" civilians.
Obama is using the same language of our enemies -- and doesn't think anyone will notice.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Dereliction of Duty

It gets even worse. On Thursday, April 11th, The US Senate voted to advance a “gun control” bill that doesn’t exist and hasn’t been read. Hours after the vote, an amendment to a bill that has not been written, was posted online. This mess of an amendment is close to 8,000 words long and exempts rules to protect the privacy of medical records:

Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note).

Further, it establishes a 12-member commission whose role is to:
1) IN GENERAL.-It shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct a comprehensive factual study of incidents of mass violence, including incidents of mass violence not involving firearms, in the context of the many acts of senseless mass violence that occur in the United States each year, in order to determine the root causes of such mass violence.

It has now become routine for Congress to vote on legislation they have not read, so they can “find out what’s in it.”
 When Senators approved the 150-plus page bill  in December to avoid the “fiscal cliff” they had less than six-minutes to read it.
I would never vote to approve legislation I have not read. Out of principle I would vote against it.
The text of the Toomey/Machin amendment can be found here:
William Lee 2014, for US Senate