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

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Thatcher Legacy

I was a cold warrior in England when Margaret Thatcher--the Iron Lady-- was Prime Minister. Together with Helmut Kohl of Germany, Pope John Paul and President Reagan, they outspent and held firm to defeat the Soviet empire.
All these Countries, to include the Danes and Dutch stayed true to NATO, allowing nuclear arms to be deployed amidst massive protests and upheaval.
There was enormous pressure in Europe to withdraw all nukes. I was at RAF Upper Heyford maintaining the F-111E, a long range bomber that was to help stop a Soviet attack on the “continent.” Situated in Oxfordshire, the base was (alleged) to have stores of B-61 bombs. The town of Oxford was so “anti-war, they actually flew a black peace flag over city hall. South of Oxford was the military base of Greenham Common, which hosted cruise missiles (GLIKEM’s,) and had a permanent women’s peace encampment. I bought my first camouflage uniforms there. The organisation known as CND (the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament) was active and posted signs along the highway stating “Nuclear Bomb Route”--I  still have one that I found unattended. The hysteria in Europe was great, leading to the creation of a “movie poster”, which I also have.
It is for a remake of “Gone With the Wind,” featuring Ronny Reagan holding Maggie Thatcher up in his arms, with a mushroom cloud as a backdrop.
“She promised to follow him to the end of the world--he promised to organise it!”

When Mrs. Thatcher took over government from Labour, the UK was in sad shape--most services were Nationalised, and the unions, especially coal held the country hostage. At our house we actually burned coal for heat--which also heated the water.
When they talk about “fire and brimstone”, I got a taste of what that means.
To make a phone call, every lousy little village had their own prefix code, and that changed depending on where you called from!
She turned the Country around, and gave renewed vigor and pride to a nation.
Out of principle, she launched a small war to protect a small island near Argentina. Just last month, the people of the Falklands voted 99% to remain within the British Empire. Mrs. Thatcher should be honored and remembered for being the biggest supporter and friend of the United States, for holding firm against vicious assaults you cannot believe, and restoring the United Kingdom to economic and personal stability.
Most former Prime Ministers are given an honorary degree from Oxford University. Spitefully, however, that honor was withheld.
She did what was best for her Country--and to defeat totalitarianism--regardless of popular opinion. The true test of lasting greatness. Lady Margaret Thatcher, shopkeeper’s daughter, 1925-2013.

Friday, March 29, 2013

Despicable is spelled "MSNBC"

John Hopkins University doctor and Conservative media sensation Ben Carson was raised by a single mother in the most trying of circumstances. His odds for success were against him, save for one thing--his mother, Sonya, demanded high standards and forced her sons to learn--against their will. She pointed out those who were wards of the State, and told her boys, “If you want to stay poor, go on welfare.” She wanted more for Ben and Curtis, working two or three jobs at a time to support them.
Earlier this week, Dr Carson explained that he was against redefining “Marriage”, since that could be used to justify legal relations between man and beast and man and children (NAMBLA.) After his words were misconstrued, he went on the cable-news circuit to apologize and explain what he meant. He needn’t have bothered.
Besides being vilified, mocked and ridiculed, MSNBC showed a clip of Dr. Carson, with a graphic of a white elephant and the text
The Despicable MSNBC is the same network that edited the Zimmerman 911 call, edited video of a black man carrying a rifle, edited Governor Perry’s remarks, etc etc....
Dr Carson has just found out what it is like to be Conservative and ethnic, who has left the plantation and thinks for himself.
 You do not see the NAACP or other race hustlers running to his defense.
A minority who exhibits Conservative tendencies, you see, isn’t “authentic”, or a “real” Black. I believe some of the most courageous people in America are those Blacks who endure abuse and make their own way in life--without the adulation of the world.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Fire and Brimstone

Three years ago North Korea sunk a South Korean warship killing 0vr 40 sailors. Later that year they launched the largest artillery barrage since 1953, killing four.
Last month, the DPRK conducted the third nuclear test.
This month, in response to joint US and South Korean military exercises, a spokesman for Pyongyang's foreign ministry issued this statement:
... now that the U.S. is set to light a fuse for a nuclear war, the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK will exercise the right to a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors and to defend the supreme interests of the country.
The Supreme Command of the Korean People’s Army declared that it would totally nullify the Korean Armistice Agreement (AA) from March 11 when the U.S. nuclear war rehearsal gets into full swing. This meant that from that moment the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK will take military actions for self-defence against any target any moment...

During a rally on the same day a North Korean General said,
Intercontinental ballistic missiles and various other missiles which have already set their striking targets, are now armed with lighter, smaller and more diversified nuclear warheads and are placed on standby status.
When we [launch the missiles] Washington, which is the stronghold of evils, will be engulfed in a sea of flames/fire.)
 The DPRK has also vowed to turn Seoul and Japan “into a sea of fire”.

A DPRK newspaper added:
 The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK are waiting for a final order, getting themselves fully ready to deluge the enemies with a shower of bullets so that they can not survive, if they provoke it

The United States has about 30,000 military personnel in South Korea.
The North has been able to acquire nuclear weapons, only because we have been propping them up for at least 20 years. It was the Clinton administration that GAVE the regime tons of food aid, fuel oil, and nuclear capability to generate electricity. In exchange, they were to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons,
The North would have collapsed more than a decade ago if we had not fed them. Instead, every time they have acted with aggression, we have  rewarded them.
The violence committed by the DPRK since 1953 is continuous and so common, it is rarely noted.
Five years after North Korea acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons, our National Security advisor to President Obama said this last week:

For sixty years, the United States has been committed to ensuring peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. This means deterring North Korean aggression and protecting our allies.  And it means the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.  The United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state; nor will we stand by while it seeks to develop a nuclear-armed missile that can target the United States. 

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

To Protect and Serve?

From the Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion...”
Far from protecting the States from invasions, they are facilitating that activity.

The Associated Press reports that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released from its jails more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation in February and planned to release 3,000 more in March. The states where immigrants were released include Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano justified the decision, saying, "We're doing our very best to minimize the impacts of sequester, but there's only so much I can do. You know, I'm supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration. How do I pay for those?"

Well, I don’t know, Ms. Napolitano, what are you getting paid a six-figure salary for? Is there nothing in an agency that employs over 200,000, plus more than 150,000 contractors, (not including Coast Guard) that can be reduced?
DHS is in the process of building a new Washington DC complex costing $3.4 Billion, which will house some 14,000 bureaucrats.
In addition, the Transportation Security Administration just completed a $50-million deal to purchase new uniforms for its agents--uniforms that will be partly manufactured in Mexico.

The contempt this government has for it’s legal citizens is incredible-- 
How can you trust your government when it fails to perform the most basic functions? Sadly, this lack of consideration will become more pronounced when the intrusive and coercive ObamaCare is fully implemented.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Leave it to a Professional

On February 21st, 32-year old Katie Stockton pled guilty to a single count of murder. Eight years earlier she gave birth to a baby girl at her home in rural Illinois, and placed the newborn in the December cold in a ditch in front of her home. When first questioned by police, she pulled up her shirt and said,
“Do I look like I just gave birth to a baby?”
The frozen corpse was named “Baby Crystal” and the perpetrator was not identified for five years. When police matched DNA from blood with the corpse to saliva from a discarded cigarette, Stockton fled to Kansas City, Kansas. Later, two more infant bodies were found decomposed in the trunk of her car. The coroner who performed the three autopsies commented,
“We finally have some justice for Baby Crystal.”
The plea arrangement limits her sentence to 60 years.
We see where this poor woman made her mistake--she didn’t leave it to a professional! In this state, one can have a doctor kill their baby for them, any time, any place, for any reason! It seems very unfair that one has to be licensed to terminate life, causing undue disruption to this poor woman.
Does it really matter, if a child is killed with the legs dangling, and kicking out of the body, or to kill a child 10-seconds after it comes out of the body?
I am unable to make the moral distinction.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Who Knew?

On the floor of the House of Representatives, congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Houston,) proclaimed herself a “Freed Slave.”
Apparently she has become a Republican and has left the Democratic Party Plantation. For many years she has been a House slave doing the bidding of her overseers. It takes a lot of courage to leave the safety of the Plantation House where she has been a kept woman of color. The most courageous people and ones I admire the most are those who do not live on the plantation and freely speak their mind such as Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E. Williams who withstand relentless assaults on their character.
Coincidentally, the National Rifle Association will hold their annual meeting in Houston. Perhaps that is why she has had this change of heart in 2013.
The NRA was founded in 1871 by those Union officers who helped free the original slaves, to promote firearm ownership and proficiency. Many former slaves were protected from the klan through the efforts of the NRA.
Welcome, Ms Lee, to your new found freedom. Although scary at first, you will find fulfilling experiences and new opportunities--along with many new, true friends.
(I am not a relative by blood but in spirit as a fellow freedom seeker.)

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Register criminals, not guns

As far as I know, the NRA position on background checks has not changed. The NRA still supports checks between dealers and buyers. However, the terms, have changed to 'Universal checks" for “transfers" of all guns. In practice, it would intrude on transfers between family members. This would lead to recording the details of the gun and the names of the gun owners--thereby creating a gun registry and de facto gun registration. Therein lies the resistance. The NRA, as well as gun owners are worried about how a gun registry will be used, as historically gun registration has lead to confiscation. The oft-cited polls showing support for "Universal background checks" omit these key details, which skews the result. The issue for gun owners is not the background check--it is about registration.
For proof that registration does nothing to reduce “gun violence”, I give you Chicago.
In 2012, Chicago exceeded 500 homicides, 435 killed by guns.
Besides the exceedingly, excessive restrictions on owning a handgun in Chicago, (which requires gun registration,) Illinois is one of the few--if not only--states to require gun owners to have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. You must have this card in order to (legally) possess, buy and sell both guns and ammunition.  In addition, the statute reads:
“Any person within this State who transfers or causes to be transferred any firearm shall keep a record of such transfer for a period of 10 years from the date of transfer. such record shall contain the date of the transfer; the description; serial number or other information identifying the firearm if no serial number is available; and if the transfer was completed within this State, the transferee’s Firearm Owner’s Identification Card number. On demand of a peace officer such transferor shall produce for inspection such record of transfer.”
To recap then, to possess even one bullet in Illinois, one must have a FOID card. Most of the guns could be traced to the seller--IF the transfer was done legally. I think you could confidently assume that the killers in Chicago do not have a FOID card, and did not buy their guns from a FOID card holder.
Registration will not do--and has not done--anything to stop the flow of guns to criminals.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Protecting the Vulnerable

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., announced Thursday  (January 31st) that he has built a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act — an 18-year-old measure protecting domestically abused Americans...
The pending legislation would be a five-year extension of the act and would expand protections for gay and lesbian victims as well as American Indians.
Wouldn’t you know, it was first passed in 1994 by that great defender of Women, William (BJ) Clinton.
An advocacy group provided this real life case to demonstrate how important this legislation is to protect the vulnerable:

 “Last month, I read in the Burlington Free Press the story of Carmen Tarleton, a woman from Thetford, Vermont.  Five years ago, Carmen’s estranged husband broke into her home, beat her with a baseball bat, and poured industrial-strength lye on her, severely burning a great deal of her body and nearly blinding her.  Her doctors said that she had suffered “the most horrific injury a human being could suffer.”  Today, she is nearly blind, disfigured, and continues to experience pain from her injuries.  Stories like this one remind us that every day that we do not pass legislation that will help to prevent horrific violence and assist victims, more people are suffering.” 

Yes, we must pass separate, special laws to defend women, because we know they are different, weaker, more vulnerable, and less able to protect themselves than men. It is our obligation to protect those who are at greater risk of violence.
Last month the Department of Defense, through the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the 4 Services announced that no military job will be off-limits to women, unless the military branch can explain why they should be excluded. It is unfair to keep women out of combat and away from the front lines, since they are every bit as capable as men and can do any job a man can do. It is only an outdated idea of bigotry and discrimination that keeps women away from equal opportunity
This determination was made without any hearings, no testing, and no field trials. It is apparent that we take sports much more seriously than our military effectiveness. Have we lost our collective minds?

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Men into Boys

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is considering dropping their bigoted  ban on homosexual scout leaders. A final  decision will be made in a week.
Guys who are attracted to guys going out on camping trips with teenagers--what could possibly go wrong?
We are awaiting the Girl Scouts to follow suit and drop their discriminatory policy of not allowing male scout leaders.

Monday, January 28, 2013

They're Baaaaaaack

The new illegal immigration Amnesty plan is back, courtesy of the usual suspects comprising the gang of 8. According to opinion polls, over 60% of Americans believe there should be a “path to citizenship.”
I am confused. How is it that immigrants become citizens? Are there not ceremonies where immigrants take a pledge to the United States and become citizens?
This new plan promises to bring aliens “out of the shadows” and put an end to the illegal immigration problem. Just one thing. If we aren’t enforcing the law now, what makes you think they will after this new Amnesty is passed?

In Government we trust

Senator Diane Feinstein resurrected her new, improved gun ban, by listing 158 specific guns, and banning more by description. Her last 10-year ban expired in 2004, and used three features to describe an “assault weapon.” The new legislation uses only one feature to make a gun dangerous, like a pistol grip or folding stock.
So a Ruger mini-14 is a good gun, while a Bushmaster AR-15 is a bad gun, although they fire the same bullet and have detachable magazines.
Once again, Government claims to offer protection--after the fact. Approved Government Airline safety was in place on September 11th that provided a false sense of security.
Although there were known vulnerabilities in airline/airport security, there were no adults in leadership positions to stop the murder of nearly 3,000. It was only the actions of passengers aboard UA Flight 93, who took matters into their own hands outside of Government direction that prevented further deaths to those on the ground.
And so it is with “School Safety.” President Obama said that our FIRST duty is to protect our children, and for this we will be judged. Yet, it is the Federal Government that passed the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990, and amended in 1995, that schools became magnets for mass murderers.
1992, Lindhurst High School: 4 killed
1997, Heath High School: 3 killed
1998, Westside Middle School, 4 killed
1999, Columbine High School:  13 killed
2001, Santana High School: 13 wounded, 2 killed
2005, Minnesota school: 9 killed
2006, Amish school: 5 killed
2007, Virginia Tech: 31 killed
2008, Northern Illinois University: 5 killed
2010, University of Alabama: 3 killed
2012, Oikos University: 7 killed
2012, Sandy Hook Elementary school: 27 killed

Our sense of “safety” is only an illusion. School shootings are rare, so any school can declare themselves “safe” only because of the law of averages. That same government that has disarmed us for “public safety” have made schools vulnerable and helpless.
Will more shootings occur in these “gun-free zones”? You know the answer, and we have not even seen the worst of them. How many deaths of the innocent will we endure until we take meaningful action?

Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Punk'd Party

After being thoroughly routed by taxes and spending, the Republicans, led by Representative Paul Ryan have set upon a bold plan of “balancing” the Federal budget--in TEN YEARS. Although the Repubs insist that the “tax issue” has been settled, Dems confidently assert that any new budget plan will include “revenues”, ie. TAXES.
Just like the bully who says he will only steal your lunch money once, he will kep coming back until you stand up to him. The R’s are on the run.
Ryan also came up with an embarrassing gimmick of “withholding” congressional salary until the Senate passes a budget--something they have failed to do, in violation of law, for 4-years. Not only is this idea unconstitutional (Amendment XXVII: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened,)
but the Senate will oblige and pass a budget with More spending, More tax increases, with No reduction in spending.
Once again the Republicans will be punked and humiliated.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

For the Children

I am furious that more than 13 years after the Columbine massacre we still haven’t taken ANY meaningful action to keep our children safe.
Today President Obama proposed four pieces of legislation and signed an “Executive Order” directing 23 actions. You can read the summary here:

I guess the NRA’s advice to put an armed guard in schools wasn’t so crazy after all, since
 item 18 is to “Provide incentives to schools to hire school resource officers.”
Lip service is always given to school security but nothing useful is ever done.

After a campus concealed-carry bill was defeated in Virginia, a Virginia Tech University spokesman expressed his approval, saying that “this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
A year later that sense of safety died along with 30 helpless residents of Virginia Tech.

At Sandy Hook Elementary school, Connecticut, a new safety policy was instituted to “ensure student safety”. That new policy ensured the death of 20 children.

Most schools have in place identical and meaningless safety policies.
Mass shootings occur exclusively in “gun-free zones”, and the killer has always been stopped by someone with a gun. At Pearl Mississippi High school, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick took a handgun out of his pickup truck to stop a murderer.
Critics point out that Columbine school had an armed guard, and yet that didn’t prevent the two shooters to murder 13. You know why the “armed guard” didn’t prevent the killings? Because he was in the parking lot eating his lunch!!
If you want to get rid of guns, fine; what will we do to protect the children until then?

We have experienced time and time again what doesn’t work.

When will we try what has been proven to work.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

"It's my Party and I'll cry if I want to."

It has been said that Satan’s greatest trick is to convince people that he doesn’t exist.

I believe a politician’s greatest trick is to convince voters that all politicians are the same.
That was the Clinton defense during the impeachment scandal:
“ Hey, they all do it--he is no worse than the others”.

Last week I received a fundraising letter from the Republican National Committee.
It said
“We must support Republicans in Congress and block Barack Obama’s second term agenda of higher taxes, massive debt, and the full implementation of ObamaCare.”
“Barack Obama, Harry Reid and the Liberal Democrats have a very different vision. They seek an America of higher taxes, more regulation, greater dependency, and bigger government.”

Representative John Boehner, Senator Mitch McConnell and President Barack Obama have just destroyed the Republican Party. As we know by now, everyone’s taxes went up this year, and the top tax rate was increased from 35 to 39 percent.
In return Republicans saw no reductions in spending, no lessening of regulations, and nor rollbacks of “ObamaCare.” In short, the Republicans have reinforced the opinion that there is “not a dime’s difference between the parties.”
In fact, I can’t think of a reason to donate money to the Republican National Committee.