A couple of recent news items brings to the surface some issues with the Air Force.
The Air Force stripped an unprecedented 17 officers of their authority to control — and, if necessary, launch — nuclear missiles after a string of unpublicized failings, including a remarkably dim review of their unit's launch skills. The group's deputy commander said it is suffering "rot" within its ranks.
"We are, in fact, in a crisis right now," the commander, Lt. Col. Jay Folds, wrote in an internal email obtained by The Associated Press and confirmed by the Air Force.
The tip-off to trouble was a March inspection of the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., which earned the equivalent of a "D'' grade when tested on its mastery of Minuteman III missile launch operations. In other areas, the officers tested much better, but the group's overall fitness was deemed so tenuous that senior officers at Minot decided, after probing further, that an immediate crackdown was called for.
The Air Force publicly called the inspection a "success."
But in April it quietly removed 17 officers at Minot from the highly sensitive duty of standing 24-hour watch over the Air Force's most powerful nuclear missiles, the intercontinental ballistic missiles that can strike targets across the globe. Inside each underground launch control capsule, two officers stand "alert" at all times, ready to launch an ICBM upon presidential order.
Not the first time the Air Force has crapped the bed when it comes to Nuclear issues. Remember that in 2008, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates sacked the top civilian and military leaders of the Air Force after a series of blunders, including a bomber's mistaken flight across the country armed with nuclear-tipped missiles. Since then the Air Force has taken numerous steps designed to improve its nuclear performance.
And then we have Lt Col leading the US Air Force anti-sexual discrimination and harassament program who was arrested a few days ago form sexuakl asault or otherwise groping a woman's front and back 3nd in a parking lot. From the looks of Lt Col's booking photo the women didn;t like it one bit and whooped up on him some.
Lt. Col Jeffrey Krusinski was arrested after a woman said he had grabbed her breasts and buttocks in a parking lot in Arlington, VA, in the early morning hours of May 5. She said she was able to fight him off.
Krusinski has been removed from his position as the head of the prevention program, according to a report from Stars and Stripes. He is to be arraigned on Thursday. A judge in Arlington will determine if Krusinski will be tried in a civilian court or by the military. The Air Force has requested that it be allowed to handle the trial.
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Only in America - Canadian Version
Only in America - Canadian Version of David Letterman's Top 10 and good chance to see what Canadians think of what is going on in this country. Do we look like idiots or what? And this is all true, so let the Liberals explain that!
10) Only in America...could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
9) Only in America...could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.
8) Only in America...could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
7) Only in America...can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
6) Only in America...would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.
5) Only in America...could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
4) Only in America...could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
3) Only in America...could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company ( MarathonOil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
2) Only in America...could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
1) Only in America...could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
10) Only in America...could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
9) Only in America...could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.
8) Only in America...could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
7) Only in America...can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
6) Only in America...would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.
5) Only in America...could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
4) Only in America...could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
3) Only in America...could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company ( MarathonOil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
2) Only in America...could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
1) Only in America...could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
More Gun Laws WILL NOT Make Us Safer
I wanted to share this letter sent to me by Roger Stockton, Co-Founder of the Western Representation PAC:
Dear Patriot,
I want to share the following article written by Greg Campbell, one of our writers at ResistanceMovement.com. The left is not about to let up on their quest to take away the right for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and your support is needed to continue this fight. “We must do something.” That’s what we hear from the left on gun control. “We must do something.” It’s never, “We must pass this bill based on the undeniably sound analysis that shows the effectiveness it would have in reducing gun violence.” No, the left’s argument always seems to begin and end with “We must do something.”
Occasionally, they will throw in for good measure a, “Why do you need an ‘assault rifle?’” But mostly, they stick to the, “Won’t someone please think of the children,” argument. The arguments of gun control have changed over time and we have now reached a point where even the left tacitly admits that gun control doesn’t work. In the 1980’s, discussions of gun control swirled around flimsy stats and counter-factual arguments where both sides of the debate argued that the stats and analysis supported their contentions.
The 1990’s were a dark time for those who valued the Second Amendment as it was the era of the Assault Weapons ban. However, from those dark times emerged a silver lining. In 2004, the effectiveness of gun control was no longer a counter-factual argument; we tried it their way and the assault weapons ban did not work. After a ten-year trial run, the ban died from a want of results and we have the traceable data that highlights the flawed logic of gun control arguments. Now, the left has all but abandoned the notion that their brand of anti-gun zealotry will save lives. Instead, we hear obfuscated rhetoric that calls for the saving of lives and the enactment of gun control measures. However, we don’t hear anything about how the proposed measures would save lives. We only hear, “Well, we’ve got to do something.”
It really is a phenomenon that is unique to government. You don’t really see this kind of inspired leadership in the private sector. Imagine a man at a company going into a board room and saying, “Well, profits are down and something has to change. I’ve drafted up a plan. It’s not good and it doesn’t actually address the third-quarter losses but it’s different and, hell, we’ve got to do something. So, let’s implement this plan and viciously smear anyone who dares to point out that it does nothing to fix the problem.”
Yesterday, liberal gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn Maloney demonstrated her astonishing ignorance on MSNBC as she discussed the need for gun control in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing. Specifically, she addressed the suspects’ ability to obtain firearms.
“One thing that Congress can do right now is pass the gun-safety laws,” she said. “As it stands right now, the next Tamerlan [Tsarnaev] can go to a gun show and buy all the guns he wants, all the weapons he wants, no problem, no questions asked. I think at the very least Congress should pass sensible gun-safety laws that law enforcement is asking for.
Law enforcement really wants the bill- actually, I authored it several years ago- that would make trafficking guns a felony. I mean, how dumb can we be?
As it stands right now Tamerlan, as we know now, was on the terrorist watch list. So we know a gun check would stop him if there was a background check. But as it stands now, Tamerlan, or the next Tamerlan or the next terrorist can go to any gun show and can buy a hundred round magazine, they can buy all the assault weapons they want, no questions asked. The gun lobby has the upper hand now even though 90% of Americans want gun safety.”
Ignorance of a subject is certainly understandable. I know precious little about many things. But considering that Maloney is a lawmaker who is urging the creation of laws that violate Second Amendment protections, it’s not unreasonable to ask that she do a modicum of research on the subject before running off at the mouth on a subject about which she obviously knows nothing. If she or one of her staffers would have bothered to research the issue, she would have discovered that the gun show loophole is a myth. Gun sellers at gun shows have to perform background checks. Of course, in many states private sales are legal and thus, people who run in similar circles are known to trade or sell guns. However, the dealers at gun shows are required to run background checks and risk prosecution and, at the very least, the revocation of their federal firearms license if they don’t.
Furthermore, the Tsarnaev brothers already broke many laws in obtaining their weapons. Making it “super-duper illegal” won’t deter those who are willing to break a half-dozen firearm laws. And lastly, the admission that Tamerlan wouldn’t have been able to pass a background check only proves the validity of what gun rights supporters have been saying; criminals don’t follow laws. He couldn’t pass a background check so he went elsewhere. Believing that creating a law making it illegal to sell a gun without a background check will keep guns out of the hands of criminals is as naïve as believing that since Marijuana is illegal, people can’t get it.
But hey, we’ve got to something, right?
The left has yet to bring forth a proposition that is both conducive to logic and compatible with the Constitution. While they flail about, declaring that we have got to do something, anything, they reveal their true aims. Liberals are not interested in finding a solution because they know there is no adequate solution; they just figure that while emotions are running high, they might as well make another grab for our Second Amendment rights at which they have been trying to get for decades.
Sincerely,
Roger Stockton
Co-Founder Western Representation PAC
Dear Patriot,
I want to share the following article written by Greg Campbell, one of our writers at ResistanceMovement.com. The left is not about to let up on their quest to take away the right for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and your support is needed to continue this fight. “We must do something.” That’s what we hear from the left on gun control. “We must do something.” It’s never, “We must pass this bill based on the undeniably sound analysis that shows the effectiveness it would have in reducing gun violence.” No, the left’s argument always seems to begin and end with “We must do something.”
Occasionally, they will throw in for good measure a, “Why do you need an ‘assault rifle?’” But mostly, they stick to the, “Won’t someone please think of the children,” argument. The arguments of gun control have changed over time and we have now reached a point where even the left tacitly admits that gun control doesn’t work. In the 1980’s, discussions of gun control swirled around flimsy stats and counter-factual arguments where both sides of the debate argued that the stats and analysis supported their contentions.
The 1990’s were a dark time for those who valued the Second Amendment as it was the era of the Assault Weapons ban. However, from those dark times emerged a silver lining. In 2004, the effectiveness of gun control was no longer a counter-factual argument; we tried it their way and the assault weapons ban did not work. After a ten-year trial run, the ban died from a want of results and we have the traceable data that highlights the flawed logic of gun control arguments. Now, the left has all but abandoned the notion that their brand of anti-gun zealotry will save lives. Instead, we hear obfuscated rhetoric that calls for the saving of lives and the enactment of gun control measures. However, we don’t hear anything about how the proposed measures would save lives. We only hear, “Well, we’ve got to do something.”
It really is a phenomenon that is unique to government. You don’t really see this kind of inspired leadership in the private sector. Imagine a man at a company going into a board room and saying, “Well, profits are down and something has to change. I’ve drafted up a plan. It’s not good and it doesn’t actually address the third-quarter losses but it’s different and, hell, we’ve got to do something. So, let’s implement this plan and viciously smear anyone who dares to point out that it does nothing to fix the problem.”
Yesterday, liberal gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn Maloney demonstrated her astonishing ignorance on MSNBC as she discussed the need for gun control in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing. Specifically, she addressed the suspects’ ability to obtain firearms.
“One thing that Congress can do right now is pass the gun-safety laws,” she said. “As it stands right now, the next Tamerlan [Tsarnaev] can go to a gun show and buy all the guns he wants, all the weapons he wants, no problem, no questions asked. I think at the very least Congress should pass sensible gun-safety laws that law enforcement is asking for.
Law enforcement really wants the bill- actually, I authored it several years ago- that would make trafficking guns a felony. I mean, how dumb can we be?
As it stands right now Tamerlan, as we know now, was on the terrorist watch list. So we know a gun check would stop him if there was a background check. But as it stands now, Tamerlan, or the next Tamerlan or the next terrorist can go to any gun show and can buy a hundred round magazine, they can buy all the assault weapons they want, no questions asked. The gun lobby has the upper hand now even though 90% of Americans want gun safety.”
Ignorance of a subject is certainly understandable. I know precious little about many things. But considering that Maloney is a lawmaker who is urging the creation of laws that violate Second Amendment protections, it’s not unreasonable to ask that she do a modicum of research on the subject before running off at the mouth on a subject about which she obviously knows nothing. If she or one of her staffers would have bothered to research the issue, she would have discovered that the gun show loophole is a myth. Gun sellers at gun shows have to perform background checks. Of course, in many states private sales are legal and thus, people who run in similar circles are known to trade or sell guns. However, the dealers at gun shows are required to run background checks and risk prosecution and, at the very least, the revocation of their federal firearms license if they don’t.
Furthermore, the Tsarnaev brothers already broke many laws in obtaining their weapons. Making it “super-duper illegal” won’t deter those who are willing to break a half-dozen firearm laws. And lastly, the admission that Tamerlan wouldn’t have been able to pass a background check only proves the validity of what gun rights supporters have been saying; criminals don’t follow laws. He couldn’t pass a background check so he went elsewhere. Believing that creating a law making it illegal to sell a gun without a background check will keep guns out of the hands of criminals is as naïve as believing that since Marijuana is illegal, people can’t get it.
But hey, we’ve got to something, right?
The left has yet to bring forth a proposition that is both conducive to logic and compatible with the Constitution. While they flail about, declaring that we have got to do something, anything, they reveal their true aims. Liberals are not interested in finding a solution because they know there is no adequate solution; they just figure that while emotions are running high, they might as well make another grab for our Second Amendment rights at which they have been trying to get for decades.
Sincerely,
Roger Stockton
Co-Founder Western Representation PAC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)