Who is killing more Americans, Iran or Mexico?

Question – how many deaths have resulted from the Iranian nuclear weapons program? That would be zero unless you include the Iranian nuclear scientists that have been assassinated due to the covert war being waged by the CIA and Mossaud.

Zero. As in none. Both our defense department and Israeli intelligence are on record stating that they cannot even substantiate the claim that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Yet it’s a major plank in our national defense strategy and we, as well as the EU, continue to ramp up sanctions against Iran.

Another question – which Middle East state has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Is it Iran ? No, they are a member. It’s Israel, which does possess nuclear weapons, yet doesn’t acknowledge it.

So Israel has them and Iran does not and we cannot even confirm that they are even pursuing them. Our national posture is that Israel is a friend and ally as well as a strategic asset so we will continue to conduct a policy to help protect the State of Israel and its people.

We have a long history of coming to the aid of friends and allies across the globe. Which leads me to the next question.

Which friend and ally of the U.S. has seen over 50,000 people killed or otherwise unaccounted for in the past five years in an internal war? Of course, that would be Mexico. Yes, like Israel, our friend and ally and a strategic asset. What is the difference? As a result of the Mexican drug war, we have seen the number of Americans killed steadily rising each year as a result of the border spillover violence. In fact, we have a government which has actively exploited this violence for its political gain by employing the Fast and Furious gun running operation.

Advertisements

The TSA saves us from disaster by showing a U.S. Senator who the boss is

The Police State we now live in is once again flexing its muscles as it is making a political statement with the detention of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).  Of course, the White House is jumping to their defense as press secretary Jay Carney stated.

I think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe

You can read the entire story here at the Hill – http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/205813-white-house-sides-with-tsa-in-rand-paul-standoff

I won’t waste time rehashing the laundry list of examples as to why the above statement isn’t true. Rand Paul is an outspoken critic of the TSA and his father plans to eliminate it should he win the Presidency so connecting the dots here is more than obvious. I will comment on this statement however.

“When an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport,” the agency said Monday in a written statement. “Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling”

Patently false. I know from firsthand experience. I was once a TSA screener myself. Let me give you two examples.

I was assigned to checked baggage screening for the first example. I had a passenger come through my line with a large bag of assorted power tools. I followed standard protocol, which was of course much different at the time as this was 2002. I performed a test swipe of the bag and inserted it into the ETD (electronic trace detection) machine. The alert sounded which automatically triggered a full bag search to resolve it. I completely inspected the entire bag and its contents. Several tools could not be cleared as they continued to trip the alarm. A supervisor was then involved. He did the same with similar results. The next logical step would be to disassemble the tool to inspect whats inside. However, by this time we had already consumed a rather large amount of time. In fact, my line had been shutdown to prevent inconveniencing other fliers. The passenger was complainly loudly about missing his flight. So rather than resolving the issue by 100% clearing those tools, my supervisor put him on the plane so he wouldn’t miss his flight. Nothing ever happened, but the fact remains that safety was not the primary consideration based upon the TSA protocols.

For example number two, I’ll refer once again to the ETD machine. I was tasked with some basic maintenance functions on the ETD’s at my airport due to my electronics experience. In fact, I had been provided with the manual for the machine by the manufacturer in order to become familiar with the inner workings. I kept the manual in a bag I took to work each day. I had to travel out-of-state for a family issue and I took that bag with me as a carry on. I forgot to remove the manual prior to flying. That bag went through all of the screening procedures at both ends of my round-trip flight. I had several items in that bag which at the time triggered an automatic hand search of the bag due to their nature. As you probably guessed, no one said a word. Here I am, a passenger flying with the manual of exactly how the bomb detection equipment utilized by the TSA works and not a word was said. Safety first?

Those are just a couple of examples. I have several more from my one year with the TSA. I finally quit in disgust as I realized that the TSA was merely a propaganda tool to give the public the illusion that it was safe to fly because the government was there to protect them. Now they have become just another bloated federal agency that is less effective than their private sector counterparts at providing security. Eliminating them as Ron Paul proposes will be a win-win. Save the taxpayers billions of dollars and return security back to the more effective private sector.

We take care of our own – Bruce Springsteen from new album Wrecking Ball

U.S. seeks to expand its role as global cop

The White House has laid out our nations strategic defense plans going forward and they reflect the largest change in focus in decades. No longer will we expect, or have the ability, to fight two major wars on different fronts simultaneously. Nor will we plan to engage in nation building, long-term occupations that require unsustainable investments of troops and supporting infrastructure. Primarily, this is budget-driven. In fact, many will argue that our nations debt is the biggest threat we face as a nation. For the record, our Commander-in-Chief has identified radical extremists and rogue nations seeking WMD’s as our biggest threats.

While we have been focused on Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, the Middle East will no longer be our sole focal point. Obama sees us as expanding the war theatre essentially across the globe. That includes the U.S. homeland. The recently passed NDAA highlights that America itself is now considered a battlefield and that the rules have changed. To combat the threat of homegrown terrorists, American citizens can now be indefinitely detained without charge if they are suspected of terrorist activities. No trial. No civil rights. The need for GITMO has now been eliminated completely as we don’t need an offshore holding area anymore. The entire globe has been identified as a war zone and no one is immune from these procedures.

The report outlines that our challenges will become much broader in nature. It specifically mentions the entire Asia-Pacific region. Cyber threats are expected to become more commonplace. The idea is to not leave any potential front unidentified so as to leave all options open. In fact, it can be said that Obama has assumed the role of CEO for global security. He’s actively pursuing a sales pitch.

Across the globe we will seek to be the

security partner of choice, pursuing new partnerships with a growing number of nations .–

including those in Africa and Latin America

The Constitution mandates that the Commander-in-Chief will direct the national defense of the United States. Don’t remember reading anywhere that we should be moonlighting as  a ‘security partner of choice’. Choice meaning these foreign countries can pick anyone out of the Yellow Pages for security purposes, but Obama would like it to be us.

The “New Great Game” of natural resources control is U.S. foreign policy unless Ron Paul wins

The foreign policy of the United States may have seemed a bit out of focus at times in the past few decades, but it’s now clear where we’re headed. With the recent release of the United States Strategic Defense Initiatives, the administration has now officially wrapped its arms around what has been somewhat of a hit and miss strategy toward securing energy resources for the future. The President has announced a shift in focus toward the Asia-Pacific region now that the Iraq war has ended and our occupation of Afghanistan is scheduled to end in 2014.

I’ve posted several times as to the real reason we have made Afghanistan the longest running military engagement in the history of the United States. It’s all about securing natural resources access. Read the post here. Or the original post here. In fact, here is an excerpt of testimony in front of a Congressional subcommittee on Asia/Pacific relations from 1998 by an executive from Unocal by the name of John J. Maresca.

I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act

He goes on to talk about the options available to the U.S.  for pipeline options.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company

Still not convinced? How about this statement made by Dick Cheney to the Guardian.

In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: “I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.” But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan

Tattoo from the new Van Halen album “A Different Kind of Truth”

First track off the new Van Halen album “A Different Kind of Truth” – Tattoo

Here’s a sneak peek at the second track “She’s the Woman”

Foreign owned Fiat continues to benefit from Chrysler taxpayer bailout

With the introduction of the 2013 Fiat, I mean, Dodge Dart, at the 2012 Detroit Auto Show, Fiat has now upped its ownership stake in Chrysler to 58.5%. This is the first model designed and built under Fiat control. Fiat has plans to continue to increase ownership to at least 70% in the next few years by purchasing shares of a union controlled health-care trust.

No doubt the White House will be quick to point this out as a success of the auto bailouts. Is it? That depends upon your point of view. We used taxpayer dollars to bail out what has become a foreign-owned automaker. Hey, whatever happened to the buy American campaign? Not a peep from the unions who received special treatment when Obama sidestepped existing bankruptcy law and crafted their own designed to repay the unions for his election support in 2008.

So maybe you say, what’s the big deal, didn’t we save American autoworker jobs? Actually no. Bankruptcy is merely an action to protect company investors while reorganizing under the protection of bankruptcy laws. Not an end to the company and all of the jobs as was threatened. Normally it is the bondholders who receive the most protection while stockholders lose out first, but not in our lawless world under the Obama regime.

Normally we would see the unions shouting from the rooftops about preserving American jobs, but not in this case. We effectively did the same thing as a bailout of Honda or Toyota. Yes, it’s American workers building the cars here at home, but the profits are going overseas. That’s always been the argument for GM. So what if a large percentage of the parts are foreign, they’re made here and the profits stay here. Sorry, not with Fiat.

What is interesting is the perspective of Americans on this issue. Corporate profits are the epitome of evil these days, yet using our tax dollars to ensure that a foreign corporation has the ability to make them doesn’t seem to matter. In fact, why is it that we have no problem bailing out a failed corporation, even disregarding the fact that it’s now foreign-owned, yet we despise a successful corporation utilizing a legal tax loophole? I mean, I really don’t get it. Handing out money for failure is OK, but if a company that doesn’t require saving doesn’t pay enough taxes, we somehow square that in our minds as acceptable.

Now, I really do get it. The unions stay silent because they got their reward. The White House is happy because they’re redistributing wealth while solidifying their voter base. And the average American citizen keeps whistling dixie while blissfully ignorant as to what just happened because we got to keep our precious jobs which we would have kept anyway, just under another brand name.

This is yet another example of how our liberty is not being stolen away, rather we are eagerly giving it away. We’ll gladly trade away opportunity for security. Thank the lucky stars that Obama came riding in on his white horse and saved us by saving the automakers. It’s not just the investors that got screwed in the automaker bankruptcies, it’s all of us when we accept the idea that we need government to be involved in the free market process.

The New Articles of Confederation

What is the greatest threat to our liberty? Central government. What is the driving cause behind our deficits and debt? Central government. Those are by far the two biggest issues we face today as Americans. Did I forget about a terrorist threat or a rogue nation with a nuke? No, but they aren’t the same. Terrorists may hit us, and while that will always be horrific, it will never bring America down. Neither is a nuke a practical threat. Any nation capable of launching enough to take us down would meet the same fate. A rogue nation that launched one, assuming it wasn’t intercepted, would be obliterated in response. Our known and direct threats are to our rights and our property and the federal government is behind both.

What is the solution? Based upon think tanks, economists (with the obvious exception of Keynesian inspired), bloggers, talk shows and even responses I’ve received to my posts, it is to elect true conservatives and get back to the Constitution. I disagree for several reasons. Let’s take electing true conservatives. Can they survive an ascent through party ranks while retaining principle? Remember, the establishment runs the leadership of both major parties and controls all pivotal appointments. A reformer from with-in is a threat to both parties.

What about getting back to the Constitution? For that, we must consider an even larger question. Why does the Constitution exist? Was it in response to our victory in the Revolutionary War? No. The Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War didn’t occur until 1783 years after the Constitution was ratified. Was it to protect our natural rights after declaring our independence from Great Britain? No. Of course, the Declaration of Independence was passed just after a year into the Revolutionary War which began in 1775.

The Constitution came to be to protect the power of the State. Yes, it’s true. We already had the Articles of Confederation in place which placed the emphasis on the rights of the people and more power to the State’s with a very limited Federal Government. For various reasons, the Articles failed and the response was essentially to start from scratch and draft the Constitution. History shows us that they went too far in promoting the State and a Bill of Rights was required to protect the people’s liberty.

Russian rocket engine factory pics

U.S. shifting undeclared wars to the Asia-Pacific region

The White House has released its strategic defense initiatives for the new year. It would appear that we will focus on starting new conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region as the Iraq-Afghanistan wars have outlived their usefulness. As the President stated:

Indeed, as we end today’s wars, we will focus on a broader range of challenges and opportunities, including the security and prosperity of the Asia Pacific

Now these are our defense initiatives, correct? Should we be focusing on “opportunities” when it comes to defense? The policy statement goes on further to declare:

while the U.S. military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region 

Of necessity? One would think that in the interest of national defense, we would respond to specific threats, whether active or potential, rather than identify them beforehand. In fact, this type of policy initiative announcement seems striking similar to one of a previous administration, otherwise known as the Bush Doctrine.  Interesting how those who publicly denounce policy prior to taking office then turn and embrace it once in office.

You can read the entire report here and draw your own conclusions. There is a growing chorus of disenchantment with our policy of instigating conflicts, and what else would you call defense “opportunities”, around the globe. We see it from the Ron Paul camp as well as the youth of the country, the OWS movement and many more on both the left and right. These people aren’t interested in withdrawing troops from war theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan merely to redeploy into new “opportunity” zones.