Tag Archives: terrorism

TSA Annexes NFL

TSA logic: Coming to an NFL stadium near you.

TSA logic: Coming to an NFL stadium near you.

I never thought I’d live to see the day when you couldn’t bring more than 3 oz. of shampoo into a National Football League stadium. Over the years I’ve grudgingly accepted the ban on explosives, handguns, rifles and vuvuzelas, but this may be the last straw.

The NFL has now decreed that fans (quaintly known in some quarters as paying customers) may no longer bring purses larger than a pack of cigarettes (also banned, BTW) into the stadium. In addition, the ban includes briefcases, fanny packs, coolers, backpacks, cinch bags, computer bags (!) and camera bags. Instead attendees may fill one clear plastic bag no large than 12” X 6” X 12” with their worldly possessions.

NFL officials suggest items that won’t fit inside the bag may be put in your pockets, around your neck or slipped inside a handy body cavity. In its benevolence the NFL is allowing fans to bring blankets inside, as long as you sling it over your shoulder like the infantry in the Army of Northern Virginia did.

The reason for the change is as tiresome as it is irrelevant: “To provide a safer environment for the public and significantly expedite fan entry into stadiums.” The new policy will expedite all right. Once the argument with the TSA–wannabe is over, females will be jettisoning personal possessions into waiting trash bins like shipwreck survivors tossing unneeded weight out of a lifeboat.

How sowing confusion is going to speed up security lines is something of a mystery. Many items formerly contained in a purse will go into pockets instead, where they will trigger metal detectors. This, in turn, will trigger pat–downs, wandings, pocket emptying, possession dropping and possession forgetting. You’ll have all the fun of an airport security line without the bother of remembering to put your tray table in “its full, upright and locked position.”

This season the NFL will be conducting an unintentional experiment in market dynamics. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the descending curve of a fan’s desire to attend the game to cross the rising nuisance curve of petty NFL rules. Commissioner Roger Goodell’s lasting legacy may be as the man who made pro football a studio sport.

Various credulous observers have commented, “I understand the need for increased security when it comes to larger bags. All someone needs to do is mention the 2013 Boston Marathon to silence critics.”

I’ve got a news flash: One couldn’t bring a pressure cooker into a Redskins game before the Boston bombing, much less afterwards. Dan Snyder, Redskins owner, wouldn’t allow the competition with his over–priced hot dogs. And speaking of Snyder, the NFL advised owners to establish a location where females who didn’t get the word could check their purses outside the stadium, like a hotel does with coats, and then pick the purse up after the game.

Snyder — a noted paragon of customer service — provided a little expediting here, too. Women were told to trek back to their cars with their purse or drop it in the trash.

The safety concerns of the majority of fans, and almost all the women, concern being protected from aggressive drunks, hurling drunks, disrobing drunks, cursing drunks and fighting drunks. (For their part the drunks may have some complaints, too but they have trouble remembering.) But ending alcohol sales or increasing patrolling security inside the stadium would cut into owner profits, whereas making you throw your purse in the trash costs Snyder nothing.

When you combine that with the fact you have to leave earlier to catch a football game than you do to catch a flight. The traffic home will be at least as bad as traffic to the stadium. Parking can run you $50. The ticket can cost more than an airline flight. And you have to sit idle while play stops for a TV commercial — the option of sitting at home and watching the game looks better and better. In fact, during the 2011 season almost two million seats went unsold in the NFL.

Airlines don’t worry too much about security irritation because there is no real alternative for long distance travel. But the NFL provides its own alternative: Televised games! Where you see better, eat cheaper, have a smaller carbon footprint and are on a first name basis with the drunks.

I can’t imagine this latest “safety” brainstorm is going to make NFL owners happy if they start losing concession, parking and ticket revenue.

Of course it could be that football fans are intrinsically more dangerous than baseball fans. I went to a Nationals game this week. The guard glanced in my wife’s large, black, opaque bag, saw clear plastic bottles of water and waved her though. It took about 15 seconds. There were no metal detectors and no pat–downs. I didn’t remove my shoes or my belt. Yet the family didn’t feel the least bit unsafe.

Something tells me the clear plastic bag has more to do with mom sneaking a granola bar into the stadium than it does pressure cooker bombs.

It’s enough to make you wonder if Goodell drinks Maker’s Mark bourbon. You may recall earlier this year Maker’s Mark was presented with a problem many companies wish they had in Obama’s economy — more demand for their bourbon than the company could supply at current production levels.

Classical economics offers two choices to a company in this situation: Raise prices until the demand curve crosses the price curve or keep prices where they are, endure resulting shortages and ramp up production for the future.

Instead, the owners decided to water down their bourbon, reducing alcohol content from 90 proof to 84 proof, so as to increase supply at the same price. Customers were outraged and the company quickly backed down and kept the alcohol level the same.

Goodell is diluting the quality of his product, too. But instead of water he adds irritation.

The Left’s blatant lies about nuclear weapons

ReaganPeaceQuote

The Left never ceases to make attacks on what makes America great and strong – including its military power. And by far the most important and powerful component of America’s military power is its nuclear deterrent. Hence, it is the #1 target in the Left’s crosshairs as it seeks to disarm America unilaterally – gutting both its conventional and strategic arsenals, as well as missile defense.

But of course openly seeking to disarm America for its own sake – and to expose it to danger – would be rejected by most Americans. So to get the public to accept unilateral disarmament, the Left has made up a plethora of lies: that it will supposedly make America and the world more secure and peaceful, that others will follow suit and disarm themselves, that lots of money will be saved, that terrorists will be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, that America’s “moral leadership” will encourage the “world community” to pressure North Korea and Iran into forgoing nukes… There’s seemingly no end to these Leftist fantasies.

I wonder if they’ll also claim that scrapping America’s nukes will solve the problem of obesity in America.

Let’s review the most popular Leftist lies about America’s nuclear arsenal and see if any of them have even a grain of truth.

1. Myth: “Cutting America’s nuclear arsenal, per se, will make America and the world more secure and peaceful. Less is more. Less is inherently better.”

Fact: On the contrary, it would make America and the world less secure and peaceful. It would weaken America’s deterrent against the gravest threats to US, allied, and world security – nuclear, chemical, biological, and ballistic missile attack, against which nothing else can protect (except, to a limited extent, missile defense). It would thus encourage such attacks by America’s adversaries, for whom the consequences of such attack – because of cuts in America’s deterrent – would be much smaller than when America’s nuclear arsenal is large.

To be secure, you MUST have a large nuclear arsenal – at least as large as that of your biggest adversary. This is because:

1) it needs to be big enough to survive an adversary’s first strike, thus deterring him from attempting one in the first place; and

2) it needs to be big enough to hold the vast majority of an enemy’s assets at risk – and there are thousands of such targets that need to be held at risk.

The more nuclear weapons America has, the safer she and her allies are and the more peaceful the world is. It is STRENGTH, not WEAKNESS, that ensures peace and security.

Just ask yourself: has the world gotten more secure and peaceful over the last 21 years, while America has cut her nuclear by over 75%? Of course not. Russia has rebounded, China has become a superpower, multiple rogue states have become grave threats (and are developing nuclear weapons), and multiple wars have engulfed the world.

2. Myth: “It will entice other countries, e.g. Russia and China, to cut and eventually eliminate their own nuclear arsenals.”

Fact: Quite the contrary, there is abundant evidence that they’d only increase, not cut, their nuclear arsenals. As even Jimmy Carter’s SECDEF, Harold Brown, has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.” He has called nuclear disarmament a fantasy.

Under New START, Russia has INCREASED, not cut, its nuclear arsenal – as it is allowed to, because New START only requires America to cut its arsenal. Previous unilateral American cuts have also failed to entice Russia to reciprocate. The only time Moscow has cut anything was under the old START treaty, signed in 1991. Now it is GROWING its nuclear arsenal and developing intermediate range missiles in violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Meanwhile, China, North Korea, and Pakistan, not bound by any treaty, have indeed GROWN their nuclear arsenals since then – China to as many as 3,000 warheads![1]

In addition, Russia is blatantly violating the INF Treaty by developing and testing an IRBM, and also violating the CFE Treaty! How can we trust Russia to comply with New START and reciprocate the newest cuts proposed by Obama when Russia is not complying with existing arms reduction treaties? We can’t!

3. Myth: “It will show America’s “moral leadership” and “moral example” to “the world community” and encourage it to heavily and successfully pressure North Korea and Iran to forego nuclear weapons.”

Fact: On the contrary, there is abundant evidence the world wouldn’t apply sufficient pressure on North Korea and Iran. And of course, these countries, by themselves, will not be impressed by America’s useless “moral example”. How do we know that?

Because we’ve already tried the Left’s useless, suicidal “arms control” policies and they have utterly failed. Since 1991, America has cut its nuclear arsenal by over 75%, from over 20,000 warheads to just 5,000 today – and has unilaterally withdrawn tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea, ships, and submarines, and unilaterally scrapped its most powerful ICBMs, the Peacekeepers.

Yet, the “world community” has utterly failed to significantly pressure North Korea and Iran – who, to this day, have or pursue nuclear weapons (and North Korea intends to grow its arsenal). Iran even recently opened a heavy-water facility that will enable it to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Why has the “world community” failed to apply meaningful pressure? Because there is no such thing as a unified “world community”! (Despite the Chicago community organizer’s fantasies and those of Ploughshares’ Joe Cirincione.) America’s allies, including the Gulf states, Israel, Japan, and South Korea[2], have always supported strong pressure against Iran and North Korea, and they’d support such pressure regardless of what the US would’ve done.

(In fact, allies are more likely to back the US and be content with mere “pressure” and sanctions if the US provides a large, strong nuclear umbrella to them, and much less likely to back the US if it continues to cut its nuclear deterrent – which will force them to develop their own nuclear arsenals.)

It is America’s adversaries, Russia and China, who shield those regimes from meaningful pressure. And cutting America’s nuclear deterrent won’t impress them at all – it will only make them even MORE unwilling to influence Iran and North Korea, because an America with fewer nuclear weapons is a militarily weaker America (thus fewer reasons to fear it).

4. Myth: “It will lead to a world without nuclear weapons, which is both desirable and achievable.”

Fact: A world without nuclear weapons is neither desirable nor achievable. There is ZERO chance of there ever being a world without nukes. Russia and China have large and growing arsenals – and are growing and modernizing them. Russia is developing an IRBM in violation of the INF Treaty. North Korea, already wielding nukes, intends to grow it (and has the facilities to do so) – and frequently threatens nuclear war. Iran is well on its way to the nuclear club. Worried about Iran, the Gulf states are seriously considering “going nuclear.” Besides them, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear weapons and refuse to discuss, let alone scrap, them.[3]

As SIPRI recently admitted, no nuclear power is willing to scrap, or even stop modernizing, its nuclear arsenal. (Other than Obama’s America, that is.) SIPRI’s Hans Kristensen speaks of “rampant modernization” of the arsenals of all nuclear powers.

Moreover, Russia claims her nuclear weapons are “a sacred issue” and utterly refuses to scrap or even cut them. It accords them absolute priority in its military doctrine and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if its adversary doesn’t have nuclear weapons.

The goal of “a world without nuclear weapons” isn’t just “distant”; it’s utterly unrealistic and ridiculous.

The world is not “moving towards nuclear zero”; it isn’t even on the beginning of the road to nuclear zero, and never will be. The world (other than Obama’s America) is going in the EXACTLY OPPOSITE direction: more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed states.

Barack Obama’s legacy will not be “a world without nuclear weapons”, or even a planet going in that direction. Barack Obama’s legacy will be a planet going in the exactly opposite direction, and quite possibly, a nuclear-armed Iran.

So there is ZERO chance of there ever being a world without nuclear weapons. A world with unicorns is more likely.

Nor would such a world be desirable. Nuclear weapons should be liked, not hated, because they’ve prevented any war between the major powers since their inception in 1945. They have a superb, stellar record in deterring enemies and preventing war – a record no other weapon system can claim.

And as Sun Tzu taught, the acme of military skill is to win without fighting.

Humanity lived through “Global Zero” – in a world without nukes – for almost its entire history from its dawn to 1945. During that time, there were numerous and horribly destructive wars between the great powers of the time, each one leading to huge casualties among combatants and civilians and to great destruction. Examples included the Peloponesian war, Rome’s wars of conquest, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and of course, the two World Wars. Not to mention the numerous bloody civil wars such as those in the US (1861-1865) and Russia (1918-1923).

5 million people, including 1 million Frenchmen, died in the Napoleonic Wars. Proportionally to the populations of today, that would be 50 million Europeans, including 10 million Frenchmen. French casualties in these wars were 14% higher than in WW1. In that war alone, about 10 million people died; in World War 2, over 60 million, and its perpetrators attempted the extermination of entire nations (peoples) and even races. The sheer barbarity and murder witnessed during that war is unmatched by any conflict before or after that war.

Since 1945, however – the advent of nuclear weapons – there has been NO war between the great powers. And it is mostly, if not entirely, because of nuclear weapons, which have moderated their behavior and forced them to accept coexistence with each other even if they have diametrically opposed ideologies. Nuclear weapons have taught them that even the most difficult compromise is better than a nuclear exchange.

5. Myth: “It will prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Fact: This claim is so ridiculous, it’s laughable. Scrapping America’s deterrent will do nothing to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. They can’t steal American weapons, because these are too well protected. And scrapping America’s nuclear arsenal, as proven above (and by real life experience), will do nothing to entice other countries to give up their nukes, nor prevent terrorists from stealing such weapons or buying them on the black market (if it’s possible).

Besides, having a nuclear warhead is not enough. One must also have a delivery system – a missile or aircraft and mate the two. That is too difficult for terrorists.

6. Myth: “America’s nuclear arsenal is too expensive and not worth the cost of maintaining it. And it siphons money away from other defense programs.”

Fact: America’s nuclear deterrent is one of the cheapest parts of its defenses. It costs only 6% of America’s annual budget, thus giving taxpayers a great return on investment – namely, peace and security from the gravest military threats of this world: nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile attack.

The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg – costs only $1.1 bn per year to maintain; the bomber leg costs only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal, including all the warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, supporting facilities, and personnel costs only $32-38 bn per year to maintain, which is only 6.3% of the entire military budget ($611 bn in FY2013, pre-sequestration).

Numbers don’t lie; liberals do.

For that low cost, taxpayers get a large, diverse, survivable nuclear triad capable of surviving even a large-scale first strike and of striking anywhere in the world with any needed measure of power. A triad that gives the President huge flexibility in where, when, and how to strike; a triad that keeps the enemy guessing as to how the US would retaliate.

No, the nuclear deterrent is not siphoning money away from other defense programs. It is certain other, far more expensive defense programs – notably the Junk Strike Fighter and $13.5-billion-per-copy aircraft carriers – that are siphoning it.

7. Myth: “America’s nuclear deterrent is a relic of the Cold War irrelevant to the current security environment.”

Fact: Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21st century security environment. They protect America and all of its allies against the following three, potentially catastrophic, security threats: a nuclear/chemical/biological attack, a large-scale conventional attack, and nuclear proliferation.

The US nuclear arsenal is the most effective counter-proliferation program ever created. It has discouraged all of America’s allies except Britain and France from developing nuclear weapons, reassuring them that they don’t need to do so because the US provides a powerful nuclear umbrella to them. Such an umbrella is ESPECIALLY needed now – more than ever – given the nuclear threats posed by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be. Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads to the middle of America.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver 1,274 of them. Among these are almost 70 ICBMs, 120 MRBMs, over 1,600 SRBMs, dozens of land-attack cruise missiles, six ballistic missile submarines, and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft. While the vast majority of its SRBMs and cruise missiles are reportedly conventionally-armed at present, they could be armed with nuclear weapons anytime, which is called “breakout capability.”

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has announced it will grow) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday. Only nuclear weapons can protect America against these threats. So they are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21st century.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far.

8. Myth: “A small nuclear deterrent (minimum deterrence) will suffice; we don’t need a large arsenal. Our arsenal is too big right now.”

Fact: A small nuclear arsenal will not suffice. Not even close. A small arsenal would be very easy to destroy in a first strike – as there would be far fewer targets for the enemy to destroy – thus stripping America of her nuclear retaliatory power. As Robert Kaplan rightly writes, “Never give your adversary too few problems to solve, because if you do, he’ll solve them.”

Destroying a US arsenal of only 300, 400, or even 800 weapons and a few submarines and bombers would be far easier for Russia and China than destroying America’s current arsenal.

It would also be, in and of itself, due to its small size, unable to threaten any credible retaliation because of too few weapons.

Why? Because, with a small arsenal, the US could threaten only a small number of Russia’s and China’s assets (such as military bases or weapon production plants). Yet, both Russia and China have thousands of assets that America must be able to strike in retaliation – and that doesn’t include North Korea and Iran. The 1,550 deployed strategic warhead ceiling is the absolute minimum needed to threaten credible retaliation against Russia and China. The Heritage Foundation estimates the US needs to have between 2,700-3,000 deployed warheads. The explanation why, and a simple discussion of the principles, the “mechanics”, and the needs of nuclear deterrence are here. Also please see my article here. Also see here.

May I remind you that Russia has between 6,800 and 8,800, and China has between 1,600-3,000, nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver all of them?

Thus, all leftist lies about America’s nuclear weapons have been utterly refuted once again. There isn’t even a kernel of truth in them. They’re all blatant lies.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Former DOD chief nuclear strategist Dr Philip Karber estimates China has up to 3,000 nuclear weapons, mostly hidden in its vast, 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels and bunkers. Retired Russian missile force general Viktor Yesin estimates China’s arsenal more conservatively at 1,600-1,800 warheads.

[2] While South Korea was somewhat hesitant to pressure the North under Presidents Kim and Rooh, that era is long over; current President Park is fed up with North Korea’s incessant threats.

[3] Israel, of course, has good reasons to have a nuclear deterrent, as does America.

Mass State Police Unhappy With Clerk Decision

MSP SealThe events following an incident at the Quabbin Reservoir in Belchertown, Mass. have left state police puzzled.

When 5 men and 2 women from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore converged at the reservoir that provides drinking water to the greater Boston area shortly after midnight on May 14, state police thought they would have a slam-dunk trespassing case against the seven individuals. A clerk magistrate, however, put an abrupt halt to those plans which could leave the seven alleged trespassers off-the-hook.

After being detained, interviewed and released by state police, the seven people were to await trespassing charges and a court summons. Local news reports in the days immediately following the incident listed the seven as “arrested,” though state spokesman David Procopio is now saying the group was “detained.”

The clerk’s decision not to charge the group, despite the incident triggering terrorism alerts and the involvement of the FBI, has left state police confused.

“In our view, the clerk’s decision was contrary to our past understanding with the court, specifically, that the continuance without criminal complaints (which is how minor motor vehicle matters are generally handled) is not the resolution in cases involving violations of the Quabbin watershed rules,” said Procopio in an email to MassLive.com.

The FBI and state police have since stated that the 7 individuals who reside in Amherst, Cambridge, Northampton, Sunderland and New York City have no connection to terrorist activity.

Requests to obtain the names and court dates associated with the trespassing incident have gone unanswered by the Massachusetts State Police Chief Legal Counsel Mike Halpin, the East Hampshire District Court, and the records department of the MSP.

The Quabbin Reservoir is the largest man-made water supply in the US and provides clean water to the eastern half of Massachusetts including the Boston area.

Two weeks following the Quabbin trespassing incident, vandals cut padlocks that access the Hultman Aqueduct in Framingham, Mass. The Hultman provides drinking water to the greater Boston area. Authorities say there is no evidence of tampering with the water supply and are calling the broken locks an act of vandalism.
______________________________________
Read: Questions Remain After 7 Arrested

Read: More Suspicious Activity in Boston
______________________________________
Follow me on Twitter! EJ Haust

DHS Official Says Complaining About Tap Water is Act of Terrorism

If you don’t like the taste of your tap water, maybe you oughta just drink it up and be happy! Otherwise, you may find yourself in prison for terrorism! Seriously? This is what we have become?!

From StoryLeak:

If you dare to complain about the poor quality of your tap water, you better expect a visit from Homeland Security. Because after all, as a water official has now verified on record, complaining about your tap water can be an act of terrorism.

Read the rest of the article at Storyleak

More Suspicious Activity in Boston

NO_trespassingThree padlocks meant to keep trespassers out of the greater Boston water supply in Framingham, Massachusetts were cut and a fourth was damaged, according to State Police. The incident comes just three weeks after 7 foreign nationals were arrested for trespassing at the Quabbin water reserve.

The Hultman Aqueduct carries drinking water to Boston and surrounding towns. Three access hatches about a half mile apart, with clearly visible “No Trespassing” signage, had their locks cut. A fourth lock was damaged but not fully cut. Officials are calling the latest incident “vandalism” with no connection to terrorist activity, though State Police have increased patrols in the area.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority released a statement Monday saying, “MWRA’s real-time water quality monitoring shows no change in water quality nor any sign of contamination” at the aqueduct. A similar statement was made shortly after the trespassing arrests in May.

Information regarding the 7 individuals of Middle Eastern decent who were arrested just after midnight May 14th was characterized as “confidential” by a clerk at the East Hampshire District Court in Framingham. The names, charges, and court dates have not been released by authorities, but local news reports say the individuals live in 4 separate Boston suburbs and New York City. How the 7 came to be at the same location in the middle of the night to trespass on Quabbin Water Reserve property remains unclear. Requests for this data and more via a Freedom of Information Act Request, as well as multiple messages for Massachusetts State Police Chief Legal Counsel have not yet been returned.

Read more here: 7 Arrested
_______________________________________________
Follow me on Twitter!

Faults With False Hero Worship

A former community organizer from Chicago, the president entered the Oval Office five-plus years ago, amid high hopes and promises of transparency. Critics warned not to expect anything of the kind, and to expect a velvet glove treatment if you were not counted among Obama’s close friends. Named the “Chicago Way” for a reason, operating only in a city, there is a reason it is not called, the “Way of the World”.

As the president and his lieutenants have so repeatedly illustrated, when a leader attempts to use a huge, overarching, government- and media-machine to nudge, cajole, and force results that they want, so long as the administration’s stories contain a modicum of believability, the media will push the narratives. Where Obama and others erred, was that they thought themselves to be above the fray. They would not have to actually do the dirty work, but they would surely benefit from others completing it.

Except the administration committed  a big no-no. They spied on their media friends. In a story that is still being worked out, the Justice Department intercepted two months’ worth of office, cell, and home phone communications of Associated Press reporters. The AP’s president and CEO, Gary Pruitt, went so far as questioning if the actions were not a violation of the press’ Constitutional rights.

The IRS, the supposed non-partisan tax processing and collection agency,utilized onerous and expanded questioning for conservative and Tea Party groups’ non-profit applications, and the agency may have actually delayed the applications’ approvals too. There are concerns that the IRS targeted Pro-Israel groups as well. While I hold the possibility of the narrative that some small-time, low-level, bureaucrats acted on their own, I also would not simply dismiss the charges that the impetus for the questioning and delays came from much higher-ranking officials. As many as 1/4 of select right-wing groups could have received this extra “attention”.

Adding to those crises, is the still-ongoing investigation into the Benghazi massacre. The administration calls the September 11 attack, terrorism – or not – and blames a video – or not – it seems even they cannot keep the current story straight. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s shrill reply before Congress, of, “At this point – what difference does it make?!” has already become a centerpiece of a conservative group’s advertisement.

A president who took for granted his ability to spin a yarn, and have it accepted by a mostly friendly press. So many rabid supporters, all seeking to earn recognition from a president who made crowds faint while he was campaigning in 2008. So many others who just wanted a little recognition, and who would do anything to get it – is this what that kind of false hero-worship delivers? A kind of desperate symbiotic relationship of the media and the left-wing? That is an easy claim to make, and comes with plenty of proof.

Do we find ourselves with an executive branch, run amok, ignored for too long by its chief? Are these issues of underlings, who were acting far above what their roles should allow? Or is it simple, gross, incompetence?

Worst president everA few things are now apparent. The president who worried many on the right, due to his tendency to act first, worry about Constitutionality later, is still bound by that Constitution and the rule of law. His administration, even with five years of a complicit Fourth Estate, still cannot fully run roughshod over the nation. The “Chicago Way”? It cannot be run to its feared potential, outside of a city on Lake Michigan, where its corrupt roots run much deeper. The years of waste and graft have taken a dire effect on the entire state of Illinois, and Chicago is now a micro managed miasma.

Finally, any lingering thoughts that the Tea Party had run out of steam, that conservatism had become an anachronism – should be ignored. When shown its alternative, and the machinations necessary for an alternative to even resemble a functioning ideology, people, as we are beginning to see now, will react with disgust and disdain.

Saudi Man Arrives at Detroit Airport with Pressure Cooker in Suitcase

This one surely will be chalked up under the ‘stupid criminals’ chapter, or maybe the “Oh, for God’s Sakes.” Pressure Cooker-500x500

A man flying in from Saudi Arabia this weekend was stopped by a Customs agent. He apparently had a few pages missing from his Passport (unbeknownst to him, of course). And when the agents looked in his suitcase he had brought along a pressure cooker (maybe not realizing there are Walmarts in the US?)

It has not been a month since terrorists killed and maimed many through the use of a pressure cooker bomb in Boston.

However, the ever helpful people at CAIR urged caution.

“I hope that our government is not criminalizing people if they travel and have cooking items just because they are Muslim or come from the Muslim world,” said Director Dawud Walid. “I don’t think someone flying with an empty pressure cooker elevates to a level of terrorism unless the government has some other sound information.”

The rest of you, who are not so naive can read more at the Detroit News.

Benghazi: Progressives Rewrite History in Real Time

If there was ever a moment in time when the American people could collectively glean knowledge from a “teachable moment,” the Obama Administration’s handling of the al Qaeda-related attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is surely one. From the moment the public became aware of what can only be perceived as an act of war, perpetrated at the hands of an enemy that has officially declared war on the United States and the West, the Obama Administration – Progressives one and all – have engaged in one of their favorite tactics of political opportunism: re-writing history. In this instance, they are doing it in real time; right in front of our faces.

From the moment US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice took to the airwaves to insist that the attacks that took the lives of a US Ambassador and three of his colleagues were, in fact, not a coordinated and planned terrorist assault of a US target of interest, but, rather, a “spontaneous” uprising turned violent, spurred by a third-rate video that literally no one had ever seen, the American people were being subjected to fact manipulation for political purposes. With an election coming up, a terrorist attack did not fit the Obama Campaign’s narrative that, “Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is on the run.” If the al Qaeda was on the run on September 11, 2012, it was running forward, bayonets fixed, with death in their eyes.

But re-writing history is nothing new to the Progressive Movement. During the time of Woodrow Wilson, Progressives perfected the art of propaganda to such an extent that many in the fascist  movements of Europe – Hitler, the hierarchy of the Nazi Party and even Italy’s Mussolini – took notice; impressed at the effectiveness and results achieved by Wilson’s Administration.

In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg writes:

“Under President Wilson, progressives perfected the art of government propaganda. Wilson appointed the journalist and former muckraker George Creel to head the Committee on Public Information (CPI), the first modern ministry for propaganda in the Western world. Thus empowered, Creel methodically assembled an army of nearly 100,000 ‘Four Minute Men,’ each trained by the CPI to deliver, at a moment’s notice, four-minute propaganda speeches at town meetings or any other public venues where they might be heard. In 1917–18 alone, these operatives delivered some 7.55 million speeches in 5,200 communities.

“In addition, the CPI produced – with taxpayer dollars – millions of posters, buttons, and pamphlets bearing pro-Wilson, Progressive messages. The CPI’s nearly 100 pamphlets were distributed to approximately 75 million people. ‘It was a fight for the minds of men, for the “conquest of their convictions,” and the battle line ran through every home in every country,’ Creel later recalled…

“The public-relations pioneer Edward Bernays learned the science of what he termed ‘the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses’ during his time on Creel’s committee.”

To that end, it could be argued that Barack Obama’s entire life story is a product of decades of propaganda perfection. From Dreams From My Father to The Audacity of Hope, Mr. Obama’s entire life’s story has been very carefully crafted to present a myth rather than a man; a story rather than a life; an illusion instead of a person; an idea rather than reality. But I digress…

With UN Ambassador Rice’s advancement of the narrative that it was a protest over an inconsequential and poorly made film that served at the genesis for the murders of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues, the spin of a propaganda machine meant to protect the Obama presidency began. CIA talking points used in a briefing to Obama Administration officials by the Director of National Intelligence were revised no less than two times in less than 24-hours – from 231 words that included references to jihadists and al Qaeda to 91 words that completely expunged all reference to radical Islamist participation, planning or premeditation.

And then the propaganda machine began to hum. From Ambassador Rice to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and CIA, to President Obama himself, the story – the talking points – were so succinctly crafted and choreographed that they could have been loaded into a teleprompter. Well-rehearsed and with authoritative style, each of these political operatives delivered the approved talking points text with conviction, insisting that they, too, were disgusted by the Islamophobic nature of the incendiary video. Mrs. Clinton even went so far as to look the father of slain former-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods in the eye and say, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

Of course, the light of the truth is shining on the facts of this story thanks to many in the new media, talk radio and FOX News, three information outlets routinely lambasted as “bias” and “right-wing” by the Progressive Movement’s many “useful idiots,” both in the mainstream media and the special interest community. And those facts, as they present, depict a much different reality – a much more truthful accounting – of the circumstances surrounding the slaughter in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues were abandoned; left to fend for themselves and die in a foreign land so that an election could be won.

An equally disturbing truth, albeit not as lethal, is the fact that many serving in the highest elected offices in the United States; the highest offices in the Executive Branch as well as the Legislative Branch, left these people to die because of their political aspirations; so emboldened by their total commitment to a socio-political ideology, so cripplingly devoted to attaining the power that only winning elections can afford, that they blatantly and freely deceive the American people, even about lethal attacks on our diplomats; deadly attacks against our country.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the very real fact that many, if not all, of the people who voted for Mr. Obama in 2012 were led to incorporate the “Obama Campaign Islamophobic film narrative” into their decisions at the ballot box.

The facts being what they are, it cannot be denied that the decision to deceive the American people, the decision to flagrantly lie to the American people – and, in fact, the decision to abandon four Americans as they fought for their very lives – was a decision based on a political motive. The CIA talking points on the slaughter in Benghazi were purposely and grotesquely altered in an effort to deceive the voting public into believing the deadly events of September 11, 2012, were inconsequential to the 2012 Presidential Election; that everything that could have been done to save the lives of four Americans in the service of their country was done; that the hellfire that rained down on Ambassador Christopher Stevens, US Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and former-Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods was the result of “common over-reactionary” violence associated with the hurt feelings of Islamofascists to which the Obama Administration had no recourse.

The decision to lie to the American people about the act of war that happened in Benghazi, Libya, on September 12, 2012, was made to mask the weak and conciliatory foreign policy of a president whose only real-life prerequisite experience for the highest office in the land was that of Chicago community organizer – not a constitutional scholar, not an exceptional legal mind, not a well-seasoned elected public servant, but a failed Chicago Progressive community organizer.

In the book, Fabian Freeway, Rose L. Martin explains the agenda mindset of the founders of the Fabian Socialist Movement, the very movement that would give birth to today’s Progressive Movement. Incidentally, among the founding members of this arrogant and totalitarian movement: George Bernard Shaw:

“From the outset, the nine young men and women who remained to found the Fabian Society had grandiose plans. Quite simply, they wanted to change the world through a species of propaganda termed ‘education,’ which would lead to political action. To a rather astonishing degree they have been successful…”

“Changing the world through a species of propaganda termed ‘education’.” Given the fact that the same people who lied to the American people about the slaughter in Benghazi are the very people in control of our public education system, I would have to say I have never read more chilling words.

When the people we elect to public office are caught lying there should be consequences; a price paid for the cost of the deception. Keeping in mind that the four Americans who died in the slaughter of Benghazi – whose last moments on this earth must have been hopelessly tormenting – have already paid the ultimate price in the service of their country, it is fair to say that, so far, the only price Mr. Obama has been made to pay for his deadly political opportunism is to be re-elected to the Presidency on the wings of a lie.

I’m sure he’ll lose sleep over it.

Mark Dice Handcuffed and Detained While Making YouTube Video

Mark Dice finds out the hard way that people really don’t like the idea of having their cars searched by “Obama’s Civilian National Security Force”. That just gets Dice handcuffed, and detained by the police. However, he does find people willing to sign petitions to revoke the 1st and 2nd amendments – at least as long that applies only to conservatives. Also, folks are concerned about pressure cookers in the aftermath of the Boston Bombings. (I wish I was making this up!)

(H/T MarkDice.com)

God Help Me; I Agree With Bob Beckel

Varin Tsai (CC)

Varin Tsai (CC)


Something happened that made me stop and question myself as a Republican, am I one, or have I drifted over to the dreaded Liberal side of the aisle? After all, I have considered myself a Republican since I was sixteen years old.  That question rang in my head and I could not get it out, after all, me becoming a Liberal is like Bill Ayers joining the NRA, or Sandra Fluke buying her own birth control pills, it just would not happen. So the only conclusion that I can come to, is that Mr. Beckel is finally coming to his senses and he is starting to lean right on his thinking.

The two things that started me thinking, were when Mr. Beckel said that we should stop letting Muslims into this country with student visas and also admitted that Muslims are indeed the enemy, something that Obama still refuses to admit, I agree with him on both counts. Our enemy are Muslims, so why wouldn’t we scrutinize them more than anyone else? Now if anyone else on Fox had said the same things that Mr. Beckel said, they would have been branded a racist on every Liberal outlet, but because he belongs to their club, he gets a pass, funny how that works.

“I think we really have to consider, that given the fact so many people hate us, we’re going to have to cut off Muslim students from coming to this country for some period of time, so that we can at least absorb what we got, look at what we’ve got and decide whether some of the people here should be sent back home or sent to prison,” As Mr. Beckel spoke those words while I was watching one of my favorite shows The Five, I immediately got up and grabbed a Q-Tip to clean out my ears, because I thought there might be something wrong with my hearing.

Mr. Beckel also said, “If the FBI could not deal with this fellow in Boston with all they had on him, it seems to me that we ought to give time for them to clear up their problems with the current Muslim population here and then let students come back in.”

Mr. Beckel is correct. There are now 75,000 foreign students from Muslim countries attending college in the U.S. and 20,000 more on the way in the fall. According to unofficial inquiries made to the Department of Homeland Security, agencies involved in screening students after they receive visas are said to be backlogged on making contact with the new U.S. arrivals. The big problem here is that some of these foreign students never enroll in a U.S. college once they get here. When their visa runs out, they stay here illegally without identification or residence notification.

There was also another time I found myself agreeing with Mr. Beckel, it was during the Amazing Race controversy. On the show, the twisted metal of the downed plane is treated as any other prop, with a bright “Amazing Race” “Double-U-Turn” signed planted in front of it, signifying to contestants the next phase of their scavenger hunt.
“There are 850,00 American Vietnam veterans alive today, and you owe them an amazing, big apology,” Beckel said, noting he once worked for CBS, and had even been against the war for “policy” reasons.

That’s three times I found myself agreeing with a Liberal, that’s more than I agreed with a Liberal in my sixty years on this earth, so I naturally had to question my Republican thinking. Then it dawned on me, I wasn’t the one who was changing, it was Mr. Beckel who was coming over to my side. I guess after all those years working on Fox, his head is finally getting out of the clouds and he is finally coming down to reality. Good for you Mr. Beckel, every Liberal has to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that Liberal policies just don’t work. Keep up the good work Mr. Gutfeld, Mr. Bolling, Miss Perino, Miss Tantaros, Miss GuilFoyle, you will have him voting Republican in 2016.

My latest book “What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids.”    Available Here.

Beckel

This is one man’s opinion.

Israel bombs weapons targets in Syria

Syria-CIA_WFB_Map
CNN reports that US believes Israel bombed weapons targets in Syria overnight local time. Initial reports indicate that weapons targets have been destroyed on the ground in Syria, and while Israel is not making comments on the specific incident, their security forces have stated that they will take whatever actions they must to prevent weapons from reaching the hands of their enemies.

The Israeli military had no comment. But a source in the Israeli defense establishment told CNN’s Sara Sidner, “We will do whatever is necessary to stop the transfer of weapons from Syria to terrorist organizations. We have done it in the past and we will do it if necessary the future.”

Fox News report:

More details will be posted as they become available.

—-

Billion Dollar Babies and American Jihad – Intellectual Froglegs

And here is the latest installment of Intellectual Froglegs:

Joe Dan Gorman nails it yet again, with his in-depth analysis of leftist propaganda on Jihadists, phobias, abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Janet Napolitano. In case you’re wondering, Napolitano has no clue how to do her job, except the part where she spews disjointed jargon in Congressional hearings. And the new inconvenient truth – successful terrorist attacks in four years under Obama is FIVE, and in seven years after 9/11 under Bush is ZERO.

Our True Enemy: Political Correctness

fotosinteresantes (CC)

fotosinteresantes (CC)


America has again had to face the reality of terrorism hitting our streets. The Boston Bombing was another wake-up call that we are under attack and the enemy walks among us, yet we are not supposed to admit who the enemy really is, at least not out loud.  We have a President who thinks that by ignoring the enemy, we will be a safer nation, like most of his other beliefs, he is totally wrong.

 

“I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration’s counter-terrorism policies and programs,” said the freshman congressman from Arkansas. “Counter-terrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state—the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, ‘Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?’”      Congressman Tom Cotton

 

Here is a reprint of one of my first articles, it remains true as long as Obama is in office.

When I was a kid back in the 1950′s and 60′s I watched a lot of World War II movies, mainly because back then, all the movies that were on T.V. were from the 1930′s and 40′s and many movies from the 40′s were war movies. In the early 1960′s there were quite a few war movies produced, not on T.V. but in the movie theater. As you all know one of our foe’s during the war was Japan. Hollywood made no bones about putting down the Japanese soldiers and making fun of them whenever they could. I remember seeing pictures of the famous ToJo who was their leader at the time. All the pictures as well as the cartoons had him as a funny character with squinty eyes, glasses, buckteeth and mustache. The picture of him was everywhere and why not, he was our enemy. You see we hated our enemies back then.

Fast forward to present times. Remember September 11, 2001? Muslim radicals killed 3,000 Americans that day. That day we had a new enemy. Muslims. Not all Muslim people are bad, just like not all Japanese people were bad during W.W. II. However, something is different, now we are not allowed to say anything bad about our enemies. Even though Muslims attacked us and killed Americans, we cannot make jokes about them, draw cartoons about them, paint them in an unfair manner because that would be insensitive and might hurt their feelings. It is no wonder we are losing respect around the world. America is becoming a joke to the rest of the world. We have a president that will not call terrorist attacks a terrorist attack; we now have to call it man made disasters. Why? Because we might offend someone. We have an administration that refuses to admit we have a Muslim problem in the world. Just look at the Fort Hood shooting, look how many soldiers were killed, again by a Muslim, but it was not a terrorist attack, according to the Obama administration it was work place violence. If that was not so sad it would be laughable. It seems that we have to bend over backwards to please our enemies. God forbid we might offend them.

There, we have two generations with different enemies. One Japanese, the other Muslim. Who handled the enemy better? Well I’ll give you a hint. They were called the greatest generation. And they were too. I do believe we have lost all common sense in this country. We have come to a point where we have to treat our enemies like they are our friends, no matter what they do. God forbid we should hurt their feelings. The left just does not realize that ignoring terrorism does not make it go away, it just emboldens the terrorists and makes the situation worse. We should be allowed to hate our enemies, we should not be forced to make nice nice with people who are trying to kill us. Our true enemy is Political Correctness.

My latest book “What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids”  Click Here

WellPayYouBackTojo

This is one man’s opinion.

 

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor – April 27th 2013

sncl_logocdn

When: Saturday, April 27th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Tonight, Taylor’s talking on the Boston Marathon suspected bombers, and their lovely (wacky) family. More analysis, of foreign connections, repercussions of Mirandizing the suspect, and whether or not the FBI dropped the ball.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »