Flying the friendly skies….with terrorists?

June 9, 2015

America’s airports vulnerable

Last week ABC News confirmed that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners failed 67 out of 70 tests —- or 96 percent —- carried out by special Department of Homeland Security investigators known as “red teams.”  The vulnerabilities tests were conducted as part of a DHS Inspector General review.  The acting head of the agency was reassigned after the deplorable findings were made public.

As an example of the failures, an undercover agent with a fake bomb strapped to his back set off a magnetometer —- but the screener still neglected to find it. The watchdog report revealed undercover agents were able to sneak fake explosives and banned weapons through checkpoints as part of an investigation that revealed a massive, system-wide security failure at America’s airports.

Following that alarming disclosure, Fox News reports that the TSA failed to flag 73 airport workers “linked to terrorism.”  According to TSA data, the people in question were “working for major airlines, airport venders and other employers.”

The agency acknowledged that individuals in these categories “represented a potential transportation security threat,” according to the report. 

At a White House briefing following the disclosures, press secretary Josh Earnest said President Obama continues to believe that Americans should feel confident traveling in airports across the country.

Which raised the question, when was the last time anyone in the Obama family traveled in a commercial airliner?

A search of the Inspector General’s reports turned up nothing relating to these mammoth security breaches. However we did find one relating to an investigation of a U.S. Marshal based on an anonymous letter alleging the Marshal had engaged in intimate personal relationships with subordinate employees in violation of U.S. Marshals Service policy.

Which set of circumstances most imperil the security of American travelers —- deserving of information regarding their safety rather than gossipy innuendo?


Obama handcuffs police

May 20, 2015

On February 28, 1997, Los Angeles police officers engaged in one of the most violent gun battles in modern law enforcement history. A foiled bank robbery and the lengthy exchange of gun fire that followed came to be known as the North Hollywood Shootout. Twelve officers and eight civilians were wounded. The two heavily armed bank robbers eventually were taken down. What makes this shootout involving nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition memorable is the fact that the police were outgunned by the criminals who were wearing the latest in body armor and carrying military-level armaments. The battle gave police agencies a compelling reason to better equip patrol officers, arming them with semi-automatic rifles, rather than pistols and 12-gauge shotguns.

That was then and this is now.

Barack Obama has announced a ban on federal transfers of various types of military-style gear to local police departments.

“We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like they’re an occupying force, as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them,” Obama said in a speech in Camden, New Jersey earlier this week. He said such equipment can “alienate and intimidate local residents and may send the wrong message.”

He announced the formation of a volunteer, “Elite Tech Team,” described as “data scientists, software engineers, and tech leaders, to assist law enforcement.” Obama absurdly says, “They’re going to work with the police department to troubleshoot some of the technical challenges so it’s even easier for police departments to do the things they already want to do in helping to track what’s going on in communities, and then also helping to make sure that data is used effectively to identify where there are trouble spots, where there are problems, are there particular officers that may need additional help, additional training.  All that can be obtained in a really effective, efficient way,” he claimed. 

Since when is it up to the President of the United States to decide how individual city police departments function and which officers may “need help or additional training?” Exactly how do volunteers fit into that scenario?

Through an executive order, Obama instructed federal departments to consult with police and civil rights groups to come up with restrictions on police use of military equipment. 

Obama also declared that he is launching what he calls “Promise Zones,” to combat “a sense of unfairness and powerlessness, to change the odds for communities because we’re providing job training, and helping to reduce violence, and expanding affordable housing.” 

Instilling the importance of education, respect, and working to lower the astronomical out-of-wedlock births in black communities —- which carry a near certain guarantee of poverty and accompanying high crime rates —- would be a great starting point. 

But don’t expect that to happen. The national media remains fixated on supporting Obama’s agenda of racial divisiveness, dutifully reporting on his betrayal of our dedicated law enforcement personnel —- blaming them for unrest and now severely restricting their abilities to serve and protect.


Police sacrificial pawns in mob-based charges

May 3, 2015

Prosecutor appeases rioting mobs and looters in Democrat-run city

All six Baltimore police officers charged with homicide in the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray who died in a hospital after suffering a spinal injury while in police custody have posted bail. They were released on bonds ranging between $250,000 and $350,000.

In a lightening speed rush to judgment, Maryland State Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced the charges ranging from assault to murder Friday. Mosby has been practicing law for less than ten years —- three of which were spent at Liberty Mutual Insurance, reviewing dubious claims.

Anti-police protests, driven by tech savvy anarchists adept at social media, have simultaneously erupted in cities across the country including New York, Denver, Seattle, Chicago and Portland, Oregon.  After the charges were announced, organizers billed their marches a “victory rally” and celebratory partying followed.

Charges against the Baltimore officers —- three black and three white —- are serious and  carry heavy penalties:

Officer Caesar Goodson Jr. was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, two vehicular manslaughter charges and misconduct in office. 

Officer William Porter, Lt. Brian Rice and Sgt. Alicia White were all charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office. 

Officer Edward Nero was charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office, and Officer Garrett Miller was charged with those charges plus false imprisonment.  

Goodson, facing the most serious charges, could potentially be sentenced to as much as 63 years of prison. The others face a maximum sentence of between 20 and 30 years.

Baltimore’s police union president, Gene Ryan, said none of the officers charged are responsible for Gray’s death. Michael E. Davey, an attorney who works with the union and is representing one of the officers, decried what he called an “egregious rush to judgment.”

Opposition to these charges transcend politics. Alan Dershowitz —- a nationally renown criminal appellate lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for Barack Obama —- noted that Mosley’s actions were motivated more by political expediency and short-term public safety than strong evidence. He called the charges “outrageous and irresponsible,” especially the second degree murder count filed against police van driver Caesar Goodson Jr. under a rarely seen legal principle known as “depraved heart,” which allows prosecutors in that jurisdiction to charge a person with murder without having to prove intent to kill.

“The decision to file charges was made not based on considerations of justice, but on considerations of crowd control,” Dershowitz said Saturday. “It’s a sad day for justice,” he declared. 


Obama mocked the right border security idea

April 10, 2015

New_citizens

A piranha filled moat would be cost-effective deterrent

It’s no secret illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States. It is a devastating reality in Arizona where the sieve-like border provides a portal for a seemingly unending flood of illegal aliens, drugs and crime.

While chaos reigned on the U.S./Mexico border, former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano became notorious for her derisive 2005 quip, “You show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That’s the way the border works.” 

In 2008 we were told a virtual fence was to be a technological advancement that would provide an alternative to “divisive” walls and federal agents policing the Arizona-Mexico border. The multimillion dollar project was a virtual flop and was ultimately scrapped.

Then in 2011 Obama stood at the Texas/Mexico border and declared Republicans will “never be satisfied” (video) by the amount of border protection he claimed to have put in place, although the border is more dangerous than ever. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,“ Obama mocked. “Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied.” 

2014 saw the orchestrated deluge of over 90,000 illegal children —- mostly Central American and Mexican —- into the United States.

We now read that approximately 39,000 more unaccompanied minors are expected to enter the U.S. in another surge of illegal Central American children. Their parents believe they will be given amnesty via Obama’s unilateral executive orders  and be the conduits for the absurdity known as chain migration for other family members.

The often used and obviously erroneous number of invaders of our sovereign nation has been given as 11 million for years. They keep coming. The number is not static. Immigration Counters aggregates from the latest government and private sources, analyzes trending data and provides a more accurate count of the staggering influx —- many from terror-sponsoring countries around the globe.

The 2016 election cycle is just around the corner. The illegal invasion should be a paramount consideration as you select your candidates.  Attend forums. Ask office holders and office seekers the hard questions. Don’t equivocate or allow them to bluff their answers. Accept no double talk or finessing of these critical and costly issues. American citizens are entitled to a secure homeland. Silence is acquiescence. 

The future of our nation is at stake.


Black helicopters go mainstream

March 28, 2015

USA Today warns of potential for calamity with frail, penetrable, power grid

Conspiracy theories are nothing new. “Wars and Rumors of Wars” date back to warnings in biblical prophecy, and preparedness is simply wise. Peace loving nations maintain military forces for that very reason.

Back in the 1950’s regular folks built bomb shelters in their backyards, stocked them with canned goods, made solemn vows regarding who they wouldn’t be able to let in regardless of kinship, and fervently prayed the Russians would rethink bombing the American heartland. School children were taught how to prepare for an atomic bomb by this “Duck and Cover” film that was shown in classrooms across America. It was advertised as the “official civil defense film, produced in cooperation with the Federal Civil Defense Administration, in consultation with the Safety Commission of the National Education Association.”

Fast forward. In recent times, those originally demeaned as “survivalists,” are now mainstream “preppers” finding kindred spirits at conventions and in popular warehouse clubs that are now stocking emergency freeze-dried and dehydrated food with 25-year shelf life, generators, 55-gallon emergency water barrels, with filtration systems and more. It’s now known as “self reliance.”

And why not? Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Red Cross run “preparedness“ ads directing listeners to their websites. They tell us first responders will not be available and it’s up to us to make a family emergency plan. Americans are warned in 13 languages to learn more about specific hazard types, including natural disasters, technological and accidental hazards, and— yes, even  terrorist hazards.”

Such thinking is no longer confined to those previously labeled as conservatives crazies. This past week the left-of-center USA Today ran a front page “Special Report” with a full jump page detailing the vulnerabilities of America’s power grid, how attacks could cripple the country and threaten lives. The bleak picture begins with the immediate problems if such a cyber attack were to occur, through just four days of a power outage hack. Picture no electricity, water, phone service, hospitals, transit at a standstill and stores stripped bare of food. The article advises routinely keeping gas tanks at least half-filled, having hand-cranked emergency radios and at minimum, one gallon of water for each person in the family as well as at least a three-day supply of non-perishable foods.

Back in 2009 we reported on preparation of mass graves at Arizona’s National Memorial Cemetery, something we now know is being replicated across the United States. This video shows the Phoenix cemetery. This is Georgia, They are but two disturbing examples.

In the meantime, get one of those hand-cranked radios, that also run on batteries or solar power. Lay in a supply of batteries, manual can openers, matches, gallon-size sealable plastic bags, peanut butter, canned tuna, soup and plenty of water. Prepare a good first aid kit and make sure you have a supply of necessary medications. Think of toilet paper as a marketable commodity and lay in a good stockpile. You have room.  Store rolls under your beds. They won’t spoil or become devalued like cash. 

Just a thought.


John Kerry: Neville Chamberlain clone puts world at risk & Update

March 26, 2015

Students of history know there is no peace though appeasement

Within days of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei presiding over and agreeing with crowds shouting “Death to America,”  U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is photographed with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif. The two men are working to broker a nuclear deal for the despotic and demonic Iranian regime.

 John_Kerry-_Iranian_Zarif

The photo is reminiscent of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain meeting with Adolph Hitler. Chamberlain claimed his accord with the Nazi leader would bring “peace in our time,” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1938.

Neville_Chamberlain_Adolph_Hitler

 For a much different take on accommodating enemies of liberty watch this classic video, “A Time for Choosing,” an illuminating speech delivered by Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964.

 An inspiring excerpt:

‘Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender.”

 

AP photo of John Kerry

Update-tag

March 26, 2015

Shouts of “Death to America!” aid in nuclear negotiations.

The Obama administration is caving to Iranian demands regarding expansion of the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the disgraceful deal.

Read the complete report in the Washington Free Beacon. 


Nat’l ID card: Hypocrisy reigns at Arizona Republic

March 12, 2015

Illegal aliens accorded more leeway than American citizens

The few remaining readers of the Arizona Republic are well acquainted with the tactic. Like a nagging shrew, repetition is the name of the game. The Sunday March 8, edition took the editorial route, rife with insults and scare tactics, beginning with the headline: “Anti-ID law brings troubles for travelers.” The opening line? “Now they’ve done it.” The fear-mongering comes with the threat of not being able to board an airplane without complying with governmental data gathering. Arizona legislators are called “paranoid,“ and compared to ”knuckleheaded teenagers,” debating “their little fist-shaking bills” and identified as “dollar-store constitutionalists” passing “lunatic legislation.”

This embarrassing attempt at journalism was followed by a March 11, ‘My Turn’ column by the policy director of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License in Washington, DC. He is so enamored with pro-amnesty baloney-slinging con man and state Sen. Bob Worsley, (who claimed during his campaign to favor small government) that he mentions what he calls “Worsley’s bill”  four times in two abutting paragraphs. The bill would repeal Arizona’s 2008 legislation prohibiting implementation of this massive governmental overreach.

The idea of American citizens having to produce government authorized identification is repugnant by its very nature. One that unleashes biometric mechanisms for unwarranted surveillance is reprehensible.

The national identity scheme known as REAL ID mandates that each state create a standardized electronic database of all information from every driver’s license issued.  Further, it requires each state to link its electronic database to that of every other state in the nation, effectively creating a nationwide database containing the private information of every individual with a driver’s license in the entire country.

REAL ID would become the key component of a system of identity papers, databases, status and identity checks —- in effect, an “internal passport” with the capacity to track individuals’ movements and activities.

When the issue was illegal aliens, the Arizona Republic derogatorily referred to H.B.1070 as the “show me your papers law,” since a provision allowed law enforcement to check the legal status of persons detained during investigations or traffic stops. When a much more egregious law affecting American citizens is the issue, the hypocrites at the newspaper wholeheartedly support it.

Background on this disreputable issue is fascinating and even more evidence that REAL ID appeals to no one. Arizona banned implementation of the REAL ID Act on June 17, 2008 with passage of  H.B.2677. Although all but characterized by the newspaper as arising from right-wing spew fomenting in a cauldron in the basement of the state legislature, the bill actually had widespread —- or “bi-partisan” support in the newspaper’s favored jargon. It was sponsored by leftist former state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, now representing AZ CD 9, and former Senate President Russell Pearce, an unwavering conservative.

Further, the ban was signed at the urging of the ACLU by then-Gov. Janet Na­politano, a far left Democrat, who later, as Barack Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, headed the department charged with implementing the legislation. Former Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, opted not to partic­ipate in REAL ID. Newly elected Gov. Doug Ducey, also a Republican, has yet to address the issue. His actions will be closely watched.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 371 other followers