Gregory D. Lee's Blog

U.S. Shouldn't Wait To Take Out The Pakistani Taliban

2010-06-05T12:58:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon was making contingency plans to attack the Pakistani Taliban in the Northwest Frontier Provence (NWFP) of Pakistan, only in the event of a successful “catastrophic” terrorist attack on American soil. The Pentagon apparently is convinced that only if such an attack occurs will the administration order retaliation. An anonymous senior U.S. military official told the WP that there are fears that a unilateral strike inside Pakistan’s terror against the Taliban could jeopardize Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror. I’d like to know whose fears are these.
To appease the anti-American masses in Pakistan, the Asif Ali Zardari government has protested U.S. military drone strikes in Waziristan, a part of the lawless NWFP terrorist not-so-safe haven of the Pakistani Taliban, despite some drones being launched from Pakistani soil.
The Pakistani army knows it’s stretched thin between massing forces along the Indian border and waging an unpopular war in the NWFP. Its armed forces are also deeply dependent on U.S. military funding and training to persevere. In reality, Pakistan probably hopes the U.S. will use massive air strikes and Special Forces in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border to make their job easier and end their struggle more quickly.
Faisal Shahzad received a crash course on bomb making at a Taliban training camp in Waziristan. Besides Times Square, he also intended to place explosive devices at other New York City landmarks like Grand Central Station. What if his bomb had gone off in Times Square and killed untold tourists who were out on the town to watch a Broadway play? Would that be “catastrophic” enough for this administration to act? The Intelligence Community has already confirmed the Pakistan Taliban provided the training and inspiration for the attempted attack, so why wait until Americans are killed before the U.S. will does what needs to be done?
There is no downside in unleashing the U.S. air force on Waziristan. It would be a win-win situation for both the U.S. and Pakistan.
Waziristan remains the strong hold for both Afghan and Pakistani Taliban fighters. The U.S. should take the fight to the enemy to stop them from disrupting our military’s supply chain to Afghanistan, killing innocent Pakistanis in mosques in Lahore, causing chaos in Karachi, and recruiting more fighters in Afghanistan. The U.S. didn’t hesitate to invade Afghanistan to fight the Taliban there, so why shouldn’t it take decisive action in Pakistan to finish the job?
President Zardari knows his relationship with the U.S. places him and his government between a rock and a hard place. As much as he wants to see the U.S. go away, his country is totally dependent on the U.S. aid to fight its insurgents. Striking Waziristan would go a long way in defeating insurgents and it would help stabilize the flimsy Pakistan government and restore order there. It would also help stabilize Afghanistan when fewer fighters cross its border to fight U.S., NATO and Afghan security forces. A massive air strike would deny both versions of the Taliban a safe-haven, and if we got lucky, it might even kill Osama Bin Laden and the top leadership of al-Qaeda.
From my four years of experience as a DEA special agent on a diplomat assignment to Pakistan in the mid-1990s, I know Pakistan desperately needs help to defeat insurgents and stabilize its government. Pakistan would rather negotiate peace with the Taliban then take them head on because many in its military are sympathetic to the Taliban and its religious goals; after all, Pakistan facilitated the establishment of the Taliban in Afghanistan to promote stability there. To them, a Taliban government was better than no government at all, and Afghanistan would be one less enemy they had to deal with.
I hope the administration will seriously consider military action in Waziristan now, rather than wait until another Pakistan Taliban inspired and trained jihad warrior actually succeeds in committing mass murder on American soil.
Gregory D. Lee can be reached through his website: www.gregorydlee.com. Although he is an active army reserve officer, his opinions are his own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Army or Department of Defense. Check out his blog at: www.gregorydlee.blogspot.com.

Fire The ICE Man For Refusing To Do His Duty

2010-06-05T12:56:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

In probably the most outrageous statement a federal official could ever make, John Morton, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said that his agency would “not necessary” process illegal aliens captured by Arizona law enforcement. Isn’t that his job?
Morton, backed up by his boss, Secretary Janet Napolitano, said that ICE has the discretion to not process illegal aliens they encounter. He agrees with the president when he said that Arizona’s recently passed immigration law was “misguided,” and he recently said that the solution to the illegal immigration problem was through a comprehensive federal approach, and not patchwork by the various states. Translation: amnesty to all illegal aliens. He also said that ICE will instead concentrate its efforts in other states to go after employers who knowing hire illegals.
Has Mr. Morton even read the Arizona legislation? Why should he if the president, Sec. Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder haven’t either? Ignorance is bliss. I read it, and if those most critical of the law did the same, they would see the template for a model federal law. They would read that the new Arizona law compels law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of persons they feel may be here illegally. The state law differs from federal law in that it compels its officers to do something about the illegal alien problem while the feds get a pass because of “discretion.” There’s the problem. Federal agents should be compelled to enforce all federal laws being broken in their presence, especially immigration laws.
Instead of criticizing Arizona’s common sense immigration law, AG Holder should embrace it and lobby for an identical federal law that will go a long way in reversing illegal immigration. The Arizona law has tough penalties for employers who knowing hire illegals, or whose sub-contractors do. One of the penalties is the loss of their business and professional licenses.
The Arizona law also forbids public officials and state entities from restricting the exchange of information between state and local police and ICE to determine if someone is in the country illegally. In contrast, cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco declare themselves “sanctuary cities” and forbid their officers from enforcing the law.
An administration that ignores a state’s plight of being overrun by illegals that are killing its residents and have already made its capital city the kidnapping capital of the country, is simply siding with the opposition instead of its own citizens. It’s the epitome of dereliction of a president’s duty to protect U.S. Citizens. Instead, he invites President Calderon of Mexico to the White House to politely tell Arizonians to get screwed. When compared to Mexico’s immigration policies, Arizona’s law is wimpy.
A prudent administration would immediately fired Morton and Napolitano, and dispatch every available ICE agent to Arizona, along with hundreds of FBI, DEA, and ATF agents, on a temporary duty basis, to get the situation under control. It would lobby congress to immediately pass a federal law granting the authority for all local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law and requiring them, during a lawful police encounter, to check the legal status of all suspected illegal immigrants. If the person is clearly in the country illegally, local law enforcement officers would be compelled to arrest them and turn them over to ICE or the Border Patrol for deportation. Instead, this administration prefers hugs to arrests, and sees illegals as a means to add numbers to its political party in order to retain power.
A prudent administration would scrap any notion of “reforming” immigration law and instead enforce existing law. Until that is done, reforms can wait. It would lobby congress to pass legislation compelling all public schools to check the legal status of existing and future students. This way the first lady won’t be embarrassed again when she visits a classroom and a little girl tells her that her mother “doesn’t have papers,” like what happened a week ago.
A law compelling public housing agencies to determine the legal status of prospective residents would have prevented the president’s illegal alien aunt from getting rent free accommodations for as many years as she did before she was finally caught and then given a free pass by an immigration judge.
If illegal aliens knew the first time a cop stopped them for a traffic violation in the morning, they would be on a bus back to Tijuana that night, they might not come here illegally in the first place.
Arizona has shown the courage and leadership this country badly needs. That’s why 70 percent of the nation supports the new law.

Give Me A Break, Mr. Blumenthal

2010-06-05T12:54:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General and Democratic candidate to take Chris Dodd’s upcoming vacant senate seat, held a news conference to explain his “misstatements” about his combat service during the Vietnam War. He was caught on video giving a speech at a veteran’s rally where he put his hand to his heart and said, “We have learned something very important since the days I served in Vietnam.” The problem is he never served in Vietnam. In fact, he received five draft deferments and finally enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve to avoid being drafted into the army.
Apparently, in at least eight home town newspaper articles he also claimed serving in Vietnam and never made an effort to correct the record. On one occasion he claimed to be spat on when he returned home from Vietnam. That’s outrageous.
In a news conference on May 18th, surrounded by local members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he said that he had “misspoke,” and took responsibility for those misstatements, but refused to apologize to veterans who did serve in combat. That’s fine, but it wasn’t until the New York Times published an article about Mr. Blumenthal’s false claims that he came clean. He would have continued the deception if he had not been finally caught.
In 1972, as the 19-year old son of a barber attending East Los Angeles Community College, I came home from school and my dad broke the news to me that my birthday was picked as number one in what turned out to be the country’s last draft lottery. Unlike Mr. Blumenthal as a young man, I did not work at the Nixon White House to help with college deferments. In fact, I never sought one. Within months I enlisted in the army and was on a bus to Fort Ord, California for basic combat training. Enlisting in the army was a life changing event for me. After my initial three-year enlistment, I became an officer and completed eight years of active duty. For almost 38-years in the army reserve, I have been activated to serve at the Pentagon soon after 9/11, and other domestic assignments over the years.
In the 1960s and 1970s, draft boards heard every conceivable excuse to not be inducted. Most were legitimate but some were fantasies. Mr. Blumenthal said at his news conference he didn’t know when he received his deferments, implying it didn’t matter to him. I’m here to tell you that those who chose the deferment route, e.g. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, et al, knew exactly what their deferment status was so they could immediately file another one when the first one expired. Knowing your status was more important than your grades, girlfriends, car you drove or anything else in the life of a young man facing certain combat duty in Vietnam.
For people like me and Mr. Blumenthal who served during the Vietnam War, but were not deployed to the combat theater, we are known as “Vietnam Era” veterans. That’s a big difference from being a “Vietnam Veteran.” Because Mr. Blumenthal and I lack a foreign combat theater deployment, we are not eligible for VFW membership; however he can join the American Legion like I did. I’m certain Mr. Blumenthal knew the requirements of the VFW, and that it requires proof of combat service. Applying would have revealed his deception.
Mr. Blumenthal is a starch advocate for veterans, and has made many speeches in their support. That’s commendable, but when he embellishes his service record, it raises questions about everything he has said and done. There are few things in American culture that are worse than claiming honorary combat service when in reality the person did everything he could to avoid it.
His Republican opponent for the senate seat is Rob Simmons, who happens to be a decorated 19-month Vietnam combat tour veteran. Mr. Blumenthal thought he could take that advantage away from him by also claiming Vietnam combat service.
Shame on you, Mr. Blumenthal. You owe Mr. Simmons and other Vietnam combat veterans an apology. The people of Connecticut deserve better than you.
Gregory D. Lee is an army reserve Chief Warrant Officer Five, the highest rank a Warrant Officer can achieve. His comments are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. He can be reached through his website: www.gregorydlee.com.

Time To Cut Government is Now!

2010-06-05T12:52:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

The Greece meltdown is a looking glass for the future of the United States if it doesn’t start cutting back now on its insatiable spending now, not later.
With the government’s debt at $13 trillion and trillions more expect in the next decade, the U.S. is about to fall off the cliff into an abyss unless something is immediately done. With the country turning rapidly to socialism with socialized medicine, extended unemployment payments, Social Security being bankrupt, Medicare not meeting funding requirements soon, the U.S. will go the way of Greece, except there won’t be anyone around who can afford to bail us out. We’re essentially using one charge card to pay off another.
Congress is the only entity that can spend taxpayers’ money. It is imperative that it bite the bullet and initiate massive spending cuts in order to secure a future for our grandchildren. Anything less than massive spending cuts will only be a Band-Aid on a wound that requires a tourniquet. Where should Congress start its budget cutting? It can start with itself.
For openers, the idea of members of congress taking military flights to ANY event is unacceptable. They can take commercial airliners like the rest of us. Members who visit a warzone would be the only exception, but I encourage them to stay stateside and let the military finish its job without them looking for a photo op at taxpayer expense.
Don’t cut, but completely eliminate the departments of education, commerce and agriculture. There is no good reason to have the federal government impose its standards on local school districts in return for grants. Why do we need a department of commerce to promote U.S. business interests, a form of corporate welfare, when these businesses for years have proven themselves very successful in doing just that? The department of Agriculture serves no useful purpose other than to give rich farmers, some of which are members of congress, large undeserved substitutes. Food stamps, a Department of Agriculture program, must advertise for participants. It should stop funding the purchase of potato chips and dip.
The department of health and human services must go as well, unless Obama care is repealed. Even then, it could probably be reduced at least fifty percent.
After receiving encouragement from congress, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae funded sub-prime loans to people without a down payment and no hope of making the monthly payments. They had “no skin in the game,” as the president if fond of saying. That action almost took down the entire economy when the housing bubble burst. They need to go out of business.
Politicians always say that cutting “fraud, waste and abuse” will reduce costs. They have been saying that as long as I can remember; yet, fraud, waste and abuse continue. Politicians need a new slogan, because obviously nothing has happened to reverse this trend. When congress throws more money at a program, it only serves to feed the fraud and waste.
Cut regulation. More regulation means increase business expenses, which translates to fewer profits, which translates to less government revenue. Congress is quick to regulate an airline’s carryon baggage policy, banks, and the gas mileage automobile manufacturers must meet, but they exempt themselves from any law or regulation it passes. Small businesses, the engine of the U.S. economy, refuse to hire because they continue to hear about congress’s intent to bring more regulation and higher taxes. Until small business owners hear otherwise, they will hold back in hiring because they don’t know what the future brings.
Bring half of our troops in Iraq home, and send the other half to quickly finish the job in Afghanistan. Iraq has become dependent on the U.S. to provide for its security and to rebuild its infrastructure while banking at least $8 billion of surplus in its annual budget. Time is up.
Stop rebuilding Afghanistan until the Taliban is rooted out once and for all. Send all the expensive contractors home and let Afghanistan pay for them once the enemy is defeated militarily.
End foreign aid. It only seems to make recipients more dependent on us, instead of themselves. The days of giving Africa $60 billion dollars for AIDS prevention is over. We simply cannot afford it.
Do these suggestions sound harsh? I think they are realistic. Otherwise, the country will spiral downward and everyone will be left holding the proverbial bag.

Show Me Your Papers

2010-05-02T14:59:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

Arizona’s new law, requiring police officers to question persons when they have reasonable belief they are in the country illegally, has stirred up a hornet’s nest. Police are still required to have some other probable cause before questioning someone about their immigration status, but the media never reports that. It portrays the law as reminiscent of a scene from a bad World War II movie where Nazi officers approach an unsuspecting person who just got off a train and sternly ask, “Do you have papers?”

Illegal aliens and their sympathizers are enraged about the law for a good reason: It will be effective. If it wasn’t, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, LULAC, La Raza, and a host of other organizations wouldn’t be so vocal against it. They all recognize the law’s potential to identify and deport illegal aliens. This, of course, means fewer votes in future elections for their kind. In reality, “undocumented workers” are “undocumented voters” for their party.

Arizona passed the legislation because of the federal government’s dismal failure to enforce its own immigration laws. This is not just President Obama’s fault, but also weak-kneed Republicans who, when they had the chance, failed to provide the U.S. Border Patrol the necessary resources to effectively enforce the law and turn the tide of illegal aliens back across the Mexican border.

Some law enforcement officials have been critical of the statute, fearful some illegals who are victims of crimes won’t report the crimes. But once most of the 460,000 illegal aliens leave Arizona, crime and the demand for public services will go down significantly. It won’t matter if an illegal alien crime victim cooperates with the police or not. He won’t be here to be a victim a second time.

Years ago, Congress reached the ultimate compromise to secure the border. In an effort to be politically correct and not make the “nation of immigrants” appear to be “anti-immigrant,” members of Congress voted to spend billions of dollars on a “virtual” fence, rather than a real one.

The result of all the money wasted on this project was to give members of Congress the political cover they sought to say they voted to “secure the borders.” Everyone understood this would do “virtually” nothing to stop the flow of illegal aliens. Illegals laugh as they walk northbound through the invisible fence line. They make obscene gesters to the cameras high above the desert landscape that capture their images.

Instead of taking responsibility to remedy the problem, the administration calls Arizona’s new law “misguided.” At a hearing when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if our borders were secure, she refused to answer. Incredibly, she said it was “an unfair question.” She knows the truth, but refuses to admit it.

One problem bleeding-heart Americans have is that they assume the “poor immigrant” comes here to do “jobs Americans will not do,” and wants to become a citizen. Illegals are here to take American jobs for themselves, and not just the menial, bottom rung jobs. They deprive American skilled laborers such as painters, masons, electricians, tile setters and others of good paying jobs. Another myth is that illegals contribute immensely to the local economy by spending money. In reality, Mexican illegals in Arizona don’t spend their hard earned wages there, they send most of it to their families in Mexico. Overwhelmingly, illegals do not seek U.S. citizenship. If they did, they would have initiated the necessary paperwork to do so. If they don’t qualify for citizenship, it’s for good reason.

Illegals are here for purely economic reasons. Who can blame them for taking advantage of this country’s generous free public services such as education, health care, housing and welfare? They overwhelm the system and are bankrupting state and local governments. They will not leave until the U.S. government finally enforces its immigration laws and cracks down on them and their employers.

Please keep in mind that only half of all illegal aliens in the country are from Mexico. The others are visa overstays from all over the world. Homeland Security needs to focus on them just as much. Given the right resources, this country can regain its sovereignty and respect as a nation that welcomes legal immigrants, but won’t tolerate those who take advantage of our overwhelming generosity.

If you are a U.S. citizen residing or visiting Arizona and a highway patrol officer stops you for speeding and asks you for your papers – show them! Thank him for enforcing the law. Then, enjoy the rest of your day, secure in the knowledge that he’s attempting to improve your quality of life.

Too Much Government In Our Lives

2010-04-29T13:37:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

Never one to miss an opportunity to raise your taxes, regulate your business to get more television exposure, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) now wants to save you from evil airline fees for carryon baggage.
As the opportunist that he is, Sen. Schumer again smelled an opportunity to stick his nose into someone else’s business as the first to call a press conference to announce that he would create legislation to prohibit Spirit airlines and the others from charging passengers a fee for carryon baggage if they didn’t drop the fee. He’s already contacted many of the major airlines and most have committed to not charge a fee for carryon baggage. Instead, the airlines will just raise their ticket prices; so what’s been accomplished other than more government intervention?
Spirit Airlines announced earlier this month it would charge up to $45 for carryon baggage; $30 if you pay in advance. However, the airline will reduce the fee to $20.00 if you purchase a onetime $9 “Fare Club” card. The carryon fee only applies to overhead compartments, not under the seat in front of you. So computer cases are immune. Those who pay the fee get to board first. According to the airline, the fee represents only a small increase in overall prices because Spirit has some of the lowest fares in the industry.
It sounds like Sen. Schumer is protecting the consumer, but in reality, he’s attempting to interject even more government into our daily lives. What’s next? Will he prohibit barbers from charging more than ten dollars for haircuts, or stop plumbers and electricians from charging a service call in addition to labor when they visit our home or business? Since when is it the government’s business what an airline’s policy is on carryon baggage? It’s not the government’s business, but that doesn’t matter to someone like Sen. Schumer who wants to control every facet of our life.
I don’t want to pay to have carryon luggage the next time I fly, but I feel much more strongly about the government getting involved in my daily business. If I choose to pay the fee, that should be my decision, not his. If I don’t want to pay the fee, I’ll use a different airline. It’s that simple. However, Sen. Schumer, a consummate politician who wants to portray himself as a champion for the little guy, insists on getting involved in matters that should not be of any concern to him, the senate or the government. The free market will shake out bad policies from good ones. The market will determine if the flying public is willing to pay the fee or not. Spirit will drop its carryon charge if loses customers and revenue.

What irritates me is the frequency and depth of government intervention, especially since this administration took over. A “Pay Czar” tells business that took TARP money what they can pay executives and other employees. So, a business that loses money overall, but showed a profit in a particular division of the corporation, cannot reward those employees with bonuses because the administration is offended by the concept of a company that is losing money giving any bonuses. The deserving employee loses out, and if he quits and works for another firm, the company loses as well because it can’t retain good people.
Besides prohibiting you from receiving a bonus and mandating you have health insurance or pay a fee and go to jail, Sen. Schumer and his friends in the past have instructed banks to write mortgages to people without any chance of repaying the loans, just to increase the percentage of home ownership. That interference with the mortgage industry almost destroyed the entire economy when the housing bubble burst. Now, the SEC is suing Goldman Sachs; go figure. Sen. Schumer now wants to tell your airline what its luggage policies will be.
I have a better idea, Sen. Schumer. You stay out of my business, and I’ll stay out of yours. I’m capable of making my own decisions and don’t need your help.
Lower my taxes so I can afford to pay the carryon fee. Then, the airline will not go out of business and lay off all its taxpaying employees.

Why Do California Democrats Hate The Boy Scouts?

2010-04-19T12:19:00.000-07:00

One of the most effective organizations ever created for turning boys into men and leaders is the Boy Scouts of America. Yet, somehow, Democrats in California see fit to block a resolution congratulating the BSA for 100 years of success because it allegedly discriminates against gays by barring them from membership.
If a conservative doesn’t like an organization because of its policies, he moves on to another that fits his morals. Liberals, on the other hand, seek to destroy the organization because it does not meet their personal standards or lifestyle.
As harmless and beneficial an organization the BSA is, gays and their sympathizers have constantly ridiculed it because it does not allow gays in its ranks. Moreover, there is good reason for banning gays. All young boy pedophiles are gay, but not all gays are pedophiles.
Stung long ago by gay BSA leaders who hid their sexual preference to molest boys, the BSA began a screening process. It did as much screening as possible for a non-governmental organization. Apparently, the screening process was so effective gays began complaining that they were being discriminated against. In reality, the BSA knew better than most organizations how gay infiltrators could cause damage not only to itself, but also, more importantly, to the boys who joined it.
Yet this past devious behavior by some gays did not stop the Democrats in the California state legislature from blocking a harmless resolution. They earlier introduced a resolution to honor the Girls Scouts of America, and felt compelled to mention in it that the organization did not discriminate due to an individual’s sexual orientation. The resolution passed without any changes suggested by the Republicans. Why do Democrats insist on tearing down an organization because it is trying to protect itself and its members?
Some Democrats felt the BSA policy to ban gays was the equivalent to racism. How absurd! If I had fought for racial equality and someone told me gays fit into the same category, I’d be insulted. There is no comparison. BSA is not a whites-only organization. It includes anyone who lives up to its standards and wants to participate in activities that will turn boys into men, good citizens and strong patriots. But Democrats don’t want any part of that because of the alleged discrimination against gays.
Why don’t the Democrats suggest the creation of the Gay Boy Scouts of America? That way members wouldn’t feel discriminated against and they could earn merit badges for socialism studies, Marxist doctrine, flower arrangement, fashion design, hair styling, gay sex toys, gay sexual positions, the exploration of the young and a whole host of other unspeakable acts.
Whether or not Democrats will ever admit it, gays who manage to infiltrate the BSA have done so to exploit children. Pedophiles have succeeded in infiltrating the Catholic Church, police and fire departments, high school coaching staffs and other organizations for the primary purpose to have unfettered access to young boys. They seek positions of trust and respect as a cover for their devious intentions. Banning such people from the ranks of the BSA only makes sense, but it doesn’t to liberal Democratic California politicians who ignore facts to appease their constituency.
So, before the hate mail pours in from those inclined to bash me or the BSA, just remember that the BSA policy to ban gays stems from past bad conduct by a few, not the many. Gays shouldn’t criticize it because it is doing what it thinks is best for its membership. It should be applauded for protecting its members from social deviates who look for self-gratification above all else.
God bless the Boy Scouts of America. May it go on for another hundred years and longer.

Feel Safer With Obama’s New Nuclear Weapons Policy?

2010-04-11T10:30:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

President Obama has implemented the first step in his naive vision of “a world without nuclear weapons.” Not only has he recently negotiated a treaty with Russia to further reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles, but also, this week he announced a new doctrine in which the United States will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, even if attacked with deadly biological or chemical weapons, or by a debilitating cyber attack. The president did make it clear that North Korea and Iran were still subject to being nuked if they were to attack us with nuclear weapons, primarily because they are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Until now, nuclear weapons doctrine was always classified. Presidents only spoke about it in generalities. It was designed to allow the president maximum flexibility and to keep our enemies guessing. Mr. Obama is the first president to publically announce when the country will or will not use the single most effective weapon ever devised in securing peace since World War II. Now, rogue nations that are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will not fear that this president will retaliate with devastating nuclear firepower if they attack the U.S.
Does this surprise anyone considering the president’s previous statements about ridding the world of nuclear weapons? Only our enemies were surprised to hear the policy announcement. They probably still can’t believe an American president would ever consider such a thing, because they never would. If we’re lucky, they still don’t believe him, and they’re still deterred from attacking us. The question is why would any president go out of his way to intentionally weaken his country’s defenses? Why would he show his cards to his opponents during a poker game?
What if one or more of the 189 countries that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty decided to invade the U.S. or one of our allies using overwhelming conventional forces? Would they fear a nuclear strike by the U.S.? Not according to the new Obama policy. If you were a war planner for our enemies, wouldn’t you consider the likelihood of a retaliatory nuclear strike while formulating your plan? Wouldn’t you think it was impossible to defeat the United States because it just might drop nukes on your capital? Anyone with common sense would. Now, evil-doers will rethink their strategies in defeating the U.S. militarily, especially in light of our armed forces being stretched to the maximum in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My point is why fix something that is not broken? The U.S. has had a proven deterrent to attacks on the homeland for 60 years, so why change it now.
Mr. Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons will never be achieved. The genie is out of the bottle, and has been since the United States dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan. That action ended a bloody war and saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers by forcing Japan to unconditionally surrender. There hasn’t been a Democrat President as strong as Harry Truman on national defense since.
Obviously the Russians still don’t trust the United States when it says it will never initiate a nuclear attack against them. At the Russians insistence, Mr. Obama already backed off on a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe to protect it from a missile attack by Iran.
So, do you feel any safer today than you did last week? I don’t. I do not believe that the U.S. is about to be attacked by any nation, including the Russians. I don’t believe there is a reason to be overly concerned at this point, but the actions of President Obama to purposely weakening our national defense for ideological reasons is unacceptable.
This is yet another good reason why liberals cannot be trusted with national security.

It’s Time For John Brennan To Go

2010-04-03T11:28:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

There has been much debate whether or not Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should have been read his “Miranda rights” when he was captured aboard the Detroit bound Northwest flight 253 on Christmas day after attempting to explode a bomb he hid in his underpants. Proponents and critics alike make it appear that once someone has been “Mirandized” there is no turning back; that it’s an all or nothing proposition. How wrong they are.
In a USA Today Op/Ed piece last week, John Brennan, the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, defended the FBI’s decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab after only 50 minutes of “interrogation.” Mr. Brennan wants you to believe that the FBI dispatched its most highly skilled interrogators to verbally work over Abdulmutallab, and that the agents gleaned highly actionable intelligence that the military can use to kill or capture other terrorists around the world. In reality, if you’re the new guy right out of the academy at the local FBI office, you will be the on-call duty agent on Christmas. The more senior agents are enjoying the holiday. New agents pay their dues by working on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s Day and other federal holidays as well as long boring stake outs after midnight. Mr. Brennan and pundits don’t seem to realize this.
Mr. Brennan cites the federal civilian trial of Richard Reid, the so-called “shoe bomber,” who was given his Miranda Rights “five-minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up,” as evidence why military tribunals are unnecessary. He fails to mention that Reid pled guilty in federal court, so we will never know what the outcome of trial would have been.
Considering the training all FBI agents receive, it’s no wonder the newbie agent read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights. That’s what he’s trained to do. FBI agents are not trained to be military strategists or military intelligence analysts. Mr. Brennan wrote, “It's naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform.” This is probably the most incredibly naïve statement a presidential advisor for Homeland Security could make. How could the FBI agent possibly tell if Abdulmutallab was lying to him or not about high interest targets and locations? How would the FBI agent recognize a high interest target or location if he was given the information? Only a military interrogator, with access to military intelligence, could corroborate Abdulmutallab’s information.
Weeks after the event, Mr. Brennan said that Abdulmutallab was now cooperating after the FBI went to Nigeria and asked his father to travel to the U.S. to convince him to cooperate. Why was this necessary if Abdulmutallab already told FBI agents all that he knew? Obviously Mr. Brennan’s first version of the story was fantasy.
As I have written before, Mr. Brennan’s idea of an effective interrogation technique is to offer a terrorist a lesser prison sentence in return for actionable intelligence. The Bush administration thought it was better to confine terrorists overseas and use enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, to extract information to prevent future attacks and save American lives. There is no better illustration of how Democrats and Republicans differ on their approach to fighting the war on terror; wimpy verses iron fist.
Mr. Brennan wrote, “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.” No, Mr. Brennan, being a wimp and silencing administration critics serve the goals of al-Qaeda. On February 13th, the case to fire him was enhanced when he told an audience that a 20 percent recidivism rate of released GITMO detainees “was not bad” compared to the 50% recidivism rate of federal convicts. He fails to understand that no federal convict wants to kill all Americans, but all terrorists do, so recidivism among terrorists is unacceptable.
It’s not too late to transfer Abdulmutallab to GITMO where military interrogators with intimate knowledge about Yemen and al-Qaeda can have a crack at him before he’s tried by a military tribunal. Only then will the American public think this administration is serious about winning the war on terror.
Mr. Brennan doesn’t have the stomach for the job.

Rep. McDermott’s Attempt to Weaken National Security

2010-04-03T11:27:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

This week, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) stealthily introduced a section into the intelligence authorization bill titled, “Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010.” If enacted, there would be criminal penalties up to the death penalty for U.S. interrogators in the war on terror who subjected terrorists to so-called “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EITs).
On Wednesday, Rep. McDermott, at the very last minute while you and I slept, inserted a new provision into the bill that prohibits interrogators from ever using EITs against terrorists. EITs are already banned by President Obama’s executive order, so why the need to insert this into the intelligence authorization bill? Apparently, Rep. McDermott and his friends on the intelligence committee want to remove any opportunity to use EITs again. Passing a law attaching criminal penalties for using EITs would mean it would literally take an act of congress to repeal it if this or a future president decided there was a sudden need to use them.
For example, a high value terrorist is captured and brags to his CIA interrogators that there is a crude nuclear weapon somewhere in the U.S. that will go off tomorrow. He says he knows the exact location of the bomb, but refuses to disclose it. The terrorist agrees to take a polygraph examination to prove the veracity of his claim, and passes with flying colors. The president is informed and, like the CIA, is convinced the threat is genuine. What should the president do?
If left up to Rep. McDermott, the president could not legally order the use of EITs to extract the exact location of the nuclear weapon. In fact, if the president ordered interrogators to use EITs, whether or not he obtained the information that saved thousands of American lives, he and the interrogators would be subject to imprisonment.
To Rep. McDermott, waterboarding, placing a bug in terrorists confined quarters, sleep deprivation, exploiting a phobia, or anything else that humanely persuades terrorists to disclose actionable intelligence, must to be outlawed. In fact, the act includes the sentence, “The moral standards that reflect the values of the United States governing appropriate tactics for interrogations do not change according to the dangers that we face as a nation” (emphasis added). Therefore, even if my scenario happened, interrogators could not use EITs without risking prison.
Let’s not forget that when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan in 2003, he initially clammed up and didn’t provide much, if any information. What information he did give was inaccurate and incomplete. However, according to the CIA’s Inspector General, once interrogators subjected him to EITs, including waterboarding, he became a vital source of information. He told the CIA about the history of al-Qaeda, delayed terrorist plots, and the detailed operations of the entire network. He became the “most prolific” asset on how the organization operated, and he provided information that ultimately prevented future terrorist attacks on Los Angeles, New York and London. Despite this irrefutable evidence, Democrats insist that “torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment do not produce consistently reliable information and intelligence, and are not acceptable practices because their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.”
Because terrorists are no longer waterboarded, saying that the results amount to “(in)consistent reliable information and intelligence” cannot be substantiated. This is yet another limp-wristed excuse to not do what needs to be done to secure the nation. These same people would rather see a great American city nuclear bombed than one poor al-Qaeda terrorist waterboarded. Liberals simply do not have the stomach or desire to defend the nation.
How many people have died as a result of waterboarding. None. How many people have been permanently injured because of waterboarding. None. How many people have been even slightly injured because of waterboarding. None.
On Thursday, Democrats withdrew the act after intense criticism from House Republicans. Remember that this November when you vote.

End Parole And Save More Than Tax Money

2010-04-03T11:23:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

It didn’t surprise me to read that convicted sex offender John Albert Gardner III, the man accused of murdering 17-year old Chelsea King of San Diego County, violated state parole six times after his release from prison for a sex crime conviction, the last time in 2008. Unbelievably, he never went back to prison.
The state parole board had six opportunities to put this violent sexual predator back in prison where he belongs, but instead, it abandoned its duty to protect the public and gave this guy another free pass. If the charges are true, Gardner, while on parole, murdered this honor roll student earlier this year and there is evidence he assaulted a woman in the same area in December. Knowing there was another missing 14-year old from the area, Amber Dubois, who shared similar physical traits with Chelsea, sheriff’s detectives searched the area where Chelsea’s presumed body was found, and eventually found her remains. None of these tragedies would have occurred if Gardner remained in prison.
The next time you read your local newspaper, count the number of people arrested who were on parole at the time of their arrest. You might be amazed. Many times the police find these ex-cons in possession of drugs, guns, or both.
Within the last year, two parolees in Washington state and California, in two incidents, murdered eight police officers before police killed them. How much more carnage must happen before states decide that parole simply does not work? It is impossible for parole board members to read the minds of prisoners that come before them seeking an early release. They cannot predict if someone will commit other crimes or violate the terms of parole. Even when mental health professionals and other experts strenuously recommend not paroling a particular prisoner, the board will sometimes ignore their recommendations, or by law, release the prisoner because he or she has served a certain percentage of the original sentence.
According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, there are 110,859 parolees in the state. Between sixty-five and seventy percent of all state prisoners released from prison either violate the conditions of their parole or commit new crimes. This means that the parole board gets it wrong sixty-five to seventy percent of the time. In 2006, 68,000 parolees were returned to prison for violations of their imposed conditions of parole. That’s a potential 68,000 trials with all the related expenses involved, and possibly as many crimes that could have been prevented in just one year.
In 1987, the federal government abandoned parole and held federal law breakers accountable for their actions. States need to do the same thing. Ending parole and making child molesters, robbers, burglars, rapists and conmen serve their full sentences not only prevents these predators from victimizing others, it also saves a significant amount of tax money. In light of scarce tax revenues, maybe states will seriously consider ending this practice. Even though keeping these monsters in prison longer will obviously cost more, in the long run, not having to reintroduce them into the criminal justice system as often will ultimately save money. It will also save grief for countless future victims and their families, lower the crime rate, restore public confidence in our justice system, and enhance the quality of life for law abiding citizens.
Personally, I’m tired of seeing Charles Manson on television news every three years sitting in front of a parole board that is considering releasing him. Each time prosecutors, friends and relatives of his victims have to appear before the same board to remind it why he should remain in prison. They have to needlessly relive the horror of his crimes and will never have closure until he finally dies or they know that he will spend the rest of his life in prison because the practice of parole has ended.
How many more people will become victims until state governments realize that keeping prisoners in prison lowers the crime rate every time it’s tried?

Secretary Napolitano Announces New Measures to Weaken Aviation Security

2010-04-03T11:21:00.000-07:00

By Gregory D. Lee

On Good Friday, secretary of the department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, announced that the Obama administration has revamped emergency measures following the attempted Christmas day downing of a Detroit bound flight. Since January 3, 2010, all passengers from 14 mostly Muslim countries, flying to the United States, receive additional screening before boarding an airplane. Now that policy is being replaced with a new scheme the DHS webpage says will “strengthen” airline security. In reality, it will weaken our ability to screen out terrorists before they attempt to travel to the United States.
The secretary said in a press release, “These new measures utilize real-time, threat-based intelligence along with multiple, random layers of security, both seen and unseen, to more effectively mitigate evolving terrorist threats.” In other words, “threat-based intelligence” is replacing searching all passengers from Muslim countries. Why not do both? Does that sound like an enhancement of airline security? What about suicide bombers that terrorists have recruited and we don’t have any intelligence information about? Now, these people are only subject to “random layers” of security, as opposed to systematic security scrutiny. I am certain intelligence sharing among the many federal agencies has not improved to the point of justifying such a change of policy. DHS should admit that TSA and international airport screeners are not mind readers, and all passengers traveling to the U.S. must be scrutinized every time, not randomly. With the new policy, travelers from these 14 terrorist havens will no longer be singled out for full scrutiny. This is precisely why terrorists have been recruiting people without any previously known ties to terrorist organizations.
This policy is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. The Obama administration will never do what needs to be done. Profiling passengers is the most effective way of screening passengers. Political correctness still dominates airport screening worldwide. The Nigerian with the bomb in his underpants purchased a ticket with cash and had no checked in luggage. If he had been profiled, this would have immediately raised red flags.
Muslim males, from their early twenties to forties, have committed every airline terrorist hijacking and other attacks in the past 40 years. Recently, two young Muslim female suicide bombers struck the Moscow subway, killing 40 people. Yet, TSA singles out uniformed U.S. soldiers, mothers with babies, old men and women for secondary inspection.
Based on “intelligence” the government placed the Nigerian national, on its terrorist watch list, but neglected to put him on the “no fly” list. How can this be? Every name on the terrorist watch list needs to be added to the “no fly” list. Not everyone on the “no fly” list is a terrorist, but every known or suspected terrorist should never be allowed to fly. Further, why would we want someone on the terrorism watch list to travel to this country in the first place, other than to arrest him upon his arrival? Absent that, keep him off all domestic and international airplanes.
DHS also needs to employ screeners that have passed an extensive background investigation and have IQs above a trained monkey. Once I witnessed a shift change of screeners and to my astonishment, the old shift physically searched their replacements for weapons before they went on duty. This does not instill a lot of confidence in minds of the traveling public. We can’t trust TSA screeners to not bring concealed weapons inside an airport that can be used to hijack an airplane?
Other simple, low or no cost measures to improve airline security includes allowing both on and off duty police officers, federal agents, including retirees, to carry a firearm on aircraft as passengers. Encourage airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit as a last resort to defend their aircrafts from hijackers taking control of the airplane.
The Obama administration needs to find someone competent to run TSA. The last two nominees carried baggage and withdrew. It seems the administration is more concerned with the nominee’s skin color and political leanings than his ability to perform the job.
Eliminating political correctness and using common sense in screening passengers will work the moment it is used.

Eric Holder's Dishonesty

2010-03-12T11:06:00.000-08:00

Attorney General Eric Holder conveniently "forgot" to mention during his confirmation hearings for Attorney General, that he wrote a legal brief in 2004 that challenged the Bush administration's authority to detain Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen accused al-Qaeda sympathizer who, after receiving training at a terrorist camp, returned to the U.S. to fashion and explode a "dirty" bomb.

Holder's staffers said they had "unfortunately and inadvertently missed" the brief, that was supposed to be turned over to the Judiciary committee that was considering his nomination as Attorney General.

Do you suppose if the committee knew that Holder had gone out of his was in 2004 to defend a terrorist, it might adversely impact his nomination prospects? Of course! Do you think that President Obama knew about the brief? Of course he did! He viewed it as a resume builder for Holder. The president has consistantly sought out like-minded people in his administration, which is essentially a mirror image of his predecesor's.

What's on Congress' Plate After Health Care?

2010-03-12T10:54:00.000-08:00

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid agree with President Obama that the "Nuclear" option should be used, if necessary, to pass the highly flawed Health care Legislation no single Republican will vote for. They even have another unconstitutional scheme at the ready if the nuclear option fails. Democrats want to draw in the Republicans to take some responsibility for the unpopular legislation, but so far they have held off temptation, knowing that a vote for this multi-trillion dollar socialization of medicine program will undoubtedly bring retaliation by the American people who overwhelmingly have made their opposition known.

Once this bill finally passes or is defeated, the Democrats to go on to their next agenda: Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Healthcare Showdown

2010-03-04T11:08:00.000-08:00

Now that President Obama has called for congress to use the "nuclear option" to ram his healthcare bill down the throats of Americans, will his fellow Democrats swallow their careers and vote for it? Will there be enough Democrats who object to the abortion provisions in the bill, vote against it? The Republicans need to stand firm and let the Democrats crash and burn with the bill. If there has ever been a better example of how the Democratic party has completely made a left face from the days of John F. Kennedy, I don't know what it is.

Do You Agree With Colin Powell re: America Being Safe?

2010-02-23T10:07:00.000-08:00

Retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell recently said on Meet the Press, that America was safe under President Obama. Guess he didn't read about moving terrorism trials to New York City, the Mirandizing of the underwear bomber, or the idiotic statements of John Brennan, the Deputy National Security Advisor in charge of Homeland Security matters who thinks a 20% recidivism rate of GITMO released detainees is "not bad." It's obvious to me Powell is blinded by the color of the President's skin and cannot see obvious national security issues that need fixing.

New York Politicians Now Want To Move KSM Trial Out of NYC

2010-02-06T09:42:00.000-08:00

After getting chills up their legs when AG Eric Holder, Jr. announced that Khalidh Sheikh Mohammad and four others would be tried in the Southern District of New York NOW they can't wait to have the trial in your hometown instead.

The police clued in NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg that security would cost the city close to $1 billion dollars over the years to house and try these terrorists. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who was one of those liberals thrilled to allow KSM a worldwide forum, now wants it held elsewhere, even if the feds reimburse the city for the cost of security.

Do you think the election of Scott Brown in MA to take Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat had anything to do with Schumer's religious conversion? You bet it did. Brown campaigned for lower taxes, no healthcare overhaul, and not housing terrorists in the homeland.
Imagine that!

I hope the trials stay in NYC. It's safe to say that 90% of Manhattan voted for Obama, and they should have to live with the consequences of their vote.

Was President Obama's State of the Union Address "Presidential?"

2010-01-28T14:04:00.000-08:00

Is it presidential to chastise Supreme Court Justices at the State of the Union address for upholding a First Amendment decision the president disagrees with? And, the president then says that foreign corporations should not be able to influence American politics, implying they will be able to now because of the decision.

The one time law school instructor forgot to mention that there is a federal law prohibiting any foreign corporation from contributing money, manpower or other things of value, such as television ads, to any domestic political campaign.

Your thoughts?

Healthcare Reform

2010-01-24T09:39:00.000-08:00

Will the Congressional Democrats hold hands and jump off the cliff together on Healthcare reform, or will they heed the public's will and abandon the legislation?

Electorate Buyer Remorse?

2010-01-23T13:09:00.000-08:00

Looks like Massachusetts voters are leading the way for change this November when the mid-term elections take place.