Wednesday, December 3, 2008
HILLARY'S APPOINTMENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It looks like theres a hitch in Hillary's appointment to Secretary of State. There is a constitutional amendment that prohibits it,... in her case. Unless a way is found to usurp the Constitution, her confirmation is going to take some doing. Click on the title to go to the story.
NEWLY RE-ELECTED SAXBY CHAMBLISS CREDITS SARA PALIN FOR HIS LANDSLIDE WIN IN GA.
Sara Palin is credited for "firing up" everybody in GA in the re-election bid of incumbent Saxby Chambliss. She came in and got got things really moving for him on his last push. I think she has a bright future in the GOP...........That is.....as long as she keeps her head screwed on straight and doesn't go and take a hard left on us.......
Click on the title to go to the story.
Click on the title to go to the story.
PELOSI TIGHTENS HER GRIP ON CONGRESS. EVEN THE DEMS ARE WORRIED........
It appears that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is really enjoying the prospect of having all that power since both the House, The Senate and the Oval Office are controlled by the Dems. So much it seem that even her fellow Democrats are getting worried. Click on the title to go to the story.
DID COLIN POWELL HAVE A SLIP OF THE TONGUE OR IT HIS "PREDICTION" BEING MIS-INTERPRETED?
Click on the title to go to a video of Ret. Gen./Secretary of State Collin Powell as he appeared on an edition of Meet the Press back in Oct 08. Personally, I think he is talking about how the incoming President must project himself and the United States in a time of a yet unforeseen crisis. His statement is at about 2:40 into the video. Listen to what he says and see what you think about his statement. Did he speak out of turn, or is he being mis-interpreted? You be the judge.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
IS THE UNTHINKABLE HAPPENING IN THE GUISE AS HOMELAND SECURITY?
Below is a story that went out yesterday on the Drudge Report. I went looking for it today because I was going to link to it for this article. But the story is gone and not to be found. I found it by doing a Google search. Thankfully I found it and was able to grab it. That in it self concerns me. This isn't the first time I have seen such alarming news to find later it had been pulled and not to be found. My concern over this is not misplaced. I am concerned that once the Feds put troops in place wherever, the possibility of civil rights abuse is quite prevalent. First, let me give you a little background. I am a 29 year military police officer retired. I served in both the regular Air Force and the Air National Guard System. Now, there are a few questions we have to ask. #1. Where are to troops going to come from? A. The troops could be either Active duty regular Army (Whatever Branch) or Guard and Reserve. In the article it is mentioned that the Guard and Reserve is not adequately equipped. Prior to 911 that was true. However, since 911, a lot of Units received the funding they needed to get up to operational/deployable status. The same funding could be used to equip these troops in accordance to their new mission. If these chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE Units are posted around the country, each unit must be specially equipped as to their mission tasking and be able to move on a moments notice wherever needed in the country. Now each state has their own Militia and is in my opinion, better suited to the task. I believe the National Guard will be tasked. Question #2. In what capacity will these troops operate? Will it be Federal (Title 10) or State (Title 32)? A. In my opinion, the vast majority of the time they will function under Title 32, but in the case of emergency, at the swipe of a pen, can become Title 10 in a heartbeat with hip pocket orders. #3. Are our troops trained adequately for domestic operations? A. Don't forget, our troops have received superb training in urban warfare in Iraq. They know how to kick in doors, neutralize threats, and they do it very well. Now, with all that being said, I am very concerned over the possibility of civil rights violations because of what was ALLOWED to happen in New Orleans after Katrina. The Governor of Louisiana with the concurrence of Mayor Nagan, ordered ALL guns to be confiscated. So the police went house to house and did just that. All guns to include family heirlooms were confiscated and some immediately destroyed. This happened to a families heirloom handgun. It was destroyed on the spot. The Government disarmed all law abiding citizens in the guise of security and the pre-eminent state of emergency. So, what is to happen if the unthinkable happens in one of these cities that has these CBRNE units in place? Are they going to be ordered to disarm everyone? And if so, will they do it? It is such a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment that I would like to believe that no one would be crazy enough to do it. I realize that this is a very controversial move on the Governments part, but to a degree, I agree with the principle or overt objective here. However, if history is our guide, our Government has had the habit of when given an inch, takes a mile. In this case, can we afford that? Do we trust our elected Representatives to do the right thing and not violate our rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? If New Orleans is any guide.....we're in trouble........
Read this story and make up your own mind.........
Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said.
The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.
If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide. All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it.
Military preparations for a domestic weapon-of-mass-destruction attack have been underway since at least 1996, when the Marine Corps activated a 350-member chemical and biological incident response force and later based it in Indian Head, Md., a Washington suburb. Such efforts accelerated after the Sept. 11 attacks, and at the time Iraq was invaded in 2003, a Pentagon joint task force drew on 3,000 civil support personnel across the United States.
In 2005, a new Pentagon homeland defense strategy emphasized "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, McHale said, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city.
In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces. Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005.
Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans. Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003.
Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters.
Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates. He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training.
Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach "breaks the mold" by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time. Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources.
"This is a genuine recognition that this [job] isn't something that you want to have a pickup team responsible for," said Tussing, who has assessed the military's homeland security strategies.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.
Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security.
"There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace."
McHale stressed that the response units will be subject to the act, that only 8 percent of their personnel will be responsible for security and that their duties will be to protect the force, not other law enforcement. For decades, the military has assigned larger units to respond to civil disturbances, such as during the Los Angeles riot in 1992.
U.S. forces are already under heavy strain, however. The first reaction force is built around the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, which returned in April after 15 months in Iraq. The team includes operations, aviation and medical task forces that are to be ready to deploy at home or overseas within 48 hours, with units specializing in chemical decontamination, bomb disposal, emergency care and logistics.
The one-year domestic mission, however, does not replace the brigade's next scheduled combat deployment in 2010. The brigade may get additional time in the United States to rest and regroup, compared with other combat units, but it may also face more training and operational requirements depending on its homeland security assignments.
Renuart said the Pentagon is accounting for the strain of fighting two wars, and the need for troops to spend time with their families. "We want to make sure the parameters are right for Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. The 1st Brigade's soldiers "will have some very aggressive training, but will also be home for much of that."
Although some Pentagon leaders initially expected to build the next two response units around combat teams, they are likely to be drawn mainly from reserves and the National Guard, such as the 218th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade from South Carolina, which returned in May after more than a year in Afghanistan.
Now that Pentagon strategy gives new priority to homeland security and calls for heavier reliance on the Guard and reserves, McHale said, Washington has to figure out how to pay for it.
"It's one thing to decide upon a course of action, and it's something else to make it happen," he said. "It's time to put our money where our mouth is."
Read this story and make up your own mind.........
Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said.
The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.
If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide. All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it.
Military preparations for a domestic weapon-of-mass-destruction attack have been underway since at least 1996, when the Marine Corps activated a 350-member chemical and biological incident response force and later based it in Indian Head, Md., a Washington suburb. Such efforts accelerated after the Sept. 11 attacks, and at the time Iraq was invaded in 2003, a Pentagon joint task force drew on 3,000 civil support personnel across the United States.
In 2005, a new Pentagon homeland defense strategy emphasized "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, McHale said, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city.
In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces. Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005.
Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans. Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003.
Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters.
Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates. He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training.
Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach "breaks the mold" by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time. Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources.
"This is a genuine recognition that this [job] isn't something that you want to have a pickup team responsible for," said Tussing, who has assessed the military's homeland security strategies.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.
Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security.
"There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, "and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace."
McHale stressed that the response units will be subject to the act, that only 8 percent of their personnel will be responsible for security and that their duties will be to protect the force, not other law enforcement. For decades, the military has assigned larger units to respond to civil disturbances, such as during the Los Angeles riot in 1992.
U.S. forces are already under heavy strain, however. The first reaction force is built around the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, which returned in April after 15 months in Iraq. The team includes operations, aviation and medical task forces that are to be ready to deploy at home or overseas within 48 hours, with units specializing in chemical decontamination, bomb disposal, emergency care and logistics.
The one-year domestic mission, however, does not replace the brigade's next scheduled combat deployment in 2010. The brigade may get additional time in the United States to rest and regroup, compared with other combat units, but it may also face more training and operational requirements depending on its homeland security assignments.
Renuart said the Pentagon is accounting for the strain of fighting two wars, and the need for troops to spend time with their families. "We want to make sure the parameters are right for Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. The 1st Brigade's soldiers "will have some very aggressive training, but will also be home for much of that."
Although some Pentagon leaders initially expected to build the next two response units around combat teams, they are likely to be drawn mainly from reserves and the National Guard, such as the 218th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade from South Carolina, which returned in May after more than a year in Afghanistan.
Now that Pentagon strategy gives new priority to homeland security and calls for heavier reliance on the Guard and reserves, McHale said, Washington has to figure out how to pay for it.
"It's one thing to decide upon a course of action, and it's something else to make it happen," he said. "It's time to put our money where our mouth is."
Monday, December 1, 2008
SENATOR MURRAY'S REPLY REGARDING HR 6257 ASSULT GUN BAN
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R.6257, which is currently pending in the United States House of Representatives. I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.
In the Senate, this legislation would fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of that Committee, I want to assure you that I will be following the progress of this bill and will keep your views in mind if this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration.
In the Senate, this legislation would fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of that Committee, I want to assure you that I will be following the progress of this bill and will keep your views in mind if this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to keep in touch.
I hope all is well in Vancouver.
LAWYERS CALL FOR AN INTERNATIONAL COURT TO ENFORCE GLOBAL WARMING LAWS AROUND THE WORLD
Click on the title to go to this story. It looks like the global warming nut jobs are gaining a little traction on this. How do you feel about some body of people telling the United States how to do business because of a belief? This global warming idea has been proven false by top climatologists and scientists all over the world. The reason our climate has changed a little is because the sun in in an unusually long period of sunspot inactivity. That's all. Granted we may be headed towards a mini ice age, but not global warming.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
REPLY TO MY E-MAIL TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GOP
Thank you for contacting the Republican National Committee. We certainly
appreciated your email, and will include your thoughts in our report to
the Chairman. Please do not hesitate to contact us in the future with
any of your thoughts, opinions or observations.
Office of Constituent Services
Republican National Committee
info@gop.com
appreciated your email, and will include your thoughts in our report to
the Chairman. Please do not hesitate to contact us in the future with
any of your thoughts, opinions or observations.
Office of Constituent Services
Republican National Committee
info@gop.com
SOVIET COMMUNISTS VIEW ECONOMIC DOWNTURN AS AN OPPORTUNITY
Click on the title to got to the story. This doesn't surprise me at all. The way their government is going, it wouldn't surprise me if it totally reverted back to it's former self.........Communistic amd as always, paranoid.
LETTER TO THE GOP CONCERNING HR 6257
I am writing you about this issue because I believe you and the GOP has the clout to do something about this bill. I am appalled and shocked that this is a Republican sponsored bill. I would think that now, especially after the GOP just took a huge shellacking from the Dems that a bill of this nature would be unthinkable and out of the question. The GOP has to remake itself and a move like this is going to do nothing more than drive more conservatives away from the party. I would imagine that if this bill were to somehow pass, that would be the end of the GOP. Good Conservatives will not tolerate any more messing around with the 2nd Amendment and the GOP would be well advised to leave that issue alone, or risk the complete collapse of the party. I urge all to pull the plug on this Bill.
Here is the address to the Chairman of the GOP -"Chairman@gop.com"
Click on the title to go to the GOP contact page
Here is the address to the Chairman of the GOP -"Chairman@gop.com"
Click on the title to go to the GOP contact page
FOLLOW THE PROGRESS OF HR 6257 ASSAULT GUN BAN
Click on the title to go to a site that allows you to follow the progress of this or any other bill. We need to stay on top of this.
CONGRESSMAN BRIAN BAIRD RESPONSE TO MY LETTER REGARDING ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Another "canned" response from Congressman Brian Baird;
Thank you for contacting me.
I take my responsibility to represent the people who live in Southwest Washington very seriously, which is why I deeply appreciate you taking the time to write to me. Hearing your comments and concerns on the important issues facing our country is important to me as I work to represent you in Congress. I believe that our nation's government is only as strong as the individuals who choose to actively participate in its improvement and am grateful when constituents take the time to contact me.
Please be assured that I do take note of your views and will keep them in mind as I continue to represent Southwest Washington.
Please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/baird where you can find information on my work in Congress and my positions on a variety of policy issues, as well as sign up to receive periodic email updates from me.
Sincerely,
Brian Baird
Member of Congress
Thank you for contacting me.
I take my responsibility to represent the people who live in Southwest Washington very seriously, which is why I deeply appreciate you taking the time to write to me. Hearing your comments and concerns on the important issues facing our country is important to me as I work to represent you in Congress. I believe that our nation's government is only as strong as the individuals who choose to actively participate in its improvement and am grateful when constituents take the time to contact me.
Please be assured that I do take note of your views and will keep them in mind as I continue to represent Southwest Washington.
Please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/baird where you can find information on my work in Congress and my positions on a variety of policy issues, as well as sign up to receive periodic email updates from me.
Sincerely,
Brian Baird
Member of Congress
Saturday, November 29, 2008
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN HR 6257
Here is the text of my letter I sent to Congressman Brian Baird regarding the assault weapons ban. Please feel free to copy and paste it and send it yourself to your Representatives. I was unable to send it to Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray as their sites were down. I will keep attempting and will post when I meet with success.
H.R.6257
H.R.6257
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)
In my opinion, this legislation is flawed and will do nothing to lessen violent crime of any kind. All this bill will accomplish is depriving law-abiding citizens of these types of weapons. The criminals will always have access to them. The voting American public understands what is being attempted by our Representatives who were elected to represent us and who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including the 2nd Amendment. This bill in no way serves the law-abiding public and appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm the public of these so called dangerous assault weapons. As a member of the NRA, a concerned citizen and voter, I urge you to not vote in favor of this bill or any others of this nature.
CURRENT BILL BEFORE CONGRESS - H.R.6257 Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)
Here is the text of the bill. It looks like the same crap that the Dems did in the Clinton era. Everyone needs to write to the Representatives and tell them NOT to vote in favor of this bill. The last time the Dems did this, a bunch of them were voted out of office the next election. They need to be reminded of that fact.
INFIGHTING IN OPEC, DEFERS CUTS (TEMPORARILY)
Click on the title to go to story. In my opinion, we need to crush this cartel. We must continue to reduce our consumption of oil by driving less and slower and mandating the development and marketing of alternative fuel vehicles. I am of the opinion that hydrogen and electric are the wary to go.
WHERE'S JOEY?????
It appears that the Vice President Elect, Joe Biden is pretty much missing in action. Could there be trouble in nirvana? Click on the title to go to the story.
KEEP TABS ON THE PRESIDENT ELECTS CABINET PICKS
Click on the title to go to the Fox News Cabinet tracker.
Friday, November 28, 2008
IRAQ SAYS $80 A BARREL IS REASONABLE......
Here is a story that I really don't understand.............I just to get how the Iraqi's can be allowed to do that when the US and the world is battling these high oil prices and doing everything to keep consumption down. In my little mind, $80 a barrel is WAY too much. The only way we are going to control these prices is to continue to drive slower, drive less and keep the demand down. Congress is already looking at a $1 per gallon tax so people won't be tempted to get back in their so called gas guzzling SUV's. LISTEN UP.......THIS IS FOR REAL FOLKS........I really don't want to have to pay $2-3 a gallon for gas....Do you??
STAMPEDE AT WALMART RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF A PART TIME EMPLOYEE?????!!!!!!!!!
Is this the level what we've sunk to?? My God!!.... We as a people have sunk to an all time low when we are more concerned about buying something and getting a deal than worrying about our fellow man.......shame on everyone who allowed this to happen. May God have mercy on those blinded by greed and who are of cold heart and mind. I am out of words.............Click on the title to go to the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
