Tweet This!

Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Are You Happy that Tax Dollars Subsidized the Tsarnaev Family?

FYI - Some VERY good food for thought from Dan Mitchell/The International Liberty Blog.

#LiveFree

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Are You Happy that Your Tax Dollars Subsidized the Tsarnaev Family?

by Dan Mitchell
The bad news is that there are despicable and evil people seeking to kill innocents.
The worse news is that some of these pathetic excuses for protoplasm are subsidized by taxpayers.
It's happened in France, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
And we now know that the Tsarnaev family was on he dole as well.
Which makes this cartoon funny, but at the same time not funny at all.
Welfare Terrorism
I used to think it was outrageous that the welfare state funded bad behavior (as illustrated by this humorous poster), as well as general laziness and moral depravity.
But there should be a special wing of the Moocher Hall of Fame for taxpayer-subsidized terrorists.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

GOV. GARY JOHNSON: ROMNEY PROMISES MORE WAR, MORE INTERVENTION.

FYI - From GaryJohnson2012.com.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"


Gov. Gary Johnson: Bring Our Troops Home Now

 

GOV. GARY JOHNSON: ROMNEY PROMISES MORE WAR, MORE INTERVENTION


Oct. 10, 2012, Albuquerque, NM — Speaking to students at the University of New Mexico Tuesday in Albuquerque, Libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson called Mitt Romney’s Monday foreign policy speech a “collection of promises to keep America embroiled in unnecessary wars and the same ill-advised interventions abroad that have done nothing to make the U.S. more secure.”
Johnson, who has called for bringing American troops home immediately from Afghanistan, said, “When you drill through the rhetoric Gov. Romney is using to try to distinguish his foreign policy from that of Barack Obama, you really don’t find a difference. He’s just trying to sound tougher about it.
“Romney talks about our ‘gains’ in Iraq being eroded now that our troops are gone. Does that mean he wants to send them back? And what gains? In terms of foreign policy, the war in Iraq was a mistake to begin with, and it should surprise absolutely no one that the pro-Iran regime we helped install isn’t being as obedient as we would like. And today, we learn that Iraq is buying $4.2 billion worth of arms from Russia. Wonder whose $4.2 billion they are using?
“Likewise, Gov. Romney’s vague plan for getting our troops out of the Afghanistan morass sounds pretty much like Obama’s, with a goal of ‘successful’ transition to the same Afghan security forces who have developed a disturbing habit of turning their weapons on our own troops. Both the Obama and Romney definitions of ‘successful’ will be interesting to see. The prudent approach to Afghanistan is simple: Bring our troops home now, and stop trying to fix a country that has defied fixing for generations.
“Regarding Syria, Libya and the rest of the region, Gov. Romney has fully committed himself to the fundamentally flawed idea that America can somehow manage the outcomes of revolutions and turmoil over which we really have no control. U.S. interventions and management over the past couple of decades have done nothing but galvanize anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East and beyond. To promise a continuation of those failed interventions, and suggest an even more aggressive approach, is just foolhardy.
“Sadly, there is no debate in this campaign between the Democrat and the Republican on foreign policy. The only real distinction Gov. Romney drew in his speech at Virginia Military Institute was to criticize Obama’s plan to reduce military spending, which is in fact the best idea Obama has had in a very long time. We are bankrupt, and if we are to ever get control of government spending, military spending will have to be cut, and cut substantially. Those cuts can be made without endangering our basic defense — if we simply stop playing ‘offense’ and involving our military in the internal affairs of nations on the other side of the globe.”

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Iran To United States/IAEA: Let's make a deal, with conditions.

FYI - From F. Michael Maloof/World News Daily's G-2 Buliten.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"


Iran: Let's make a deal, with conditions

WASHINGTON – As negotiations have dragged on over Iran's nuclear program, and the West continues to tighten the sanctions screws, Tehran wants to make a deal.

The Iranians have offered to cap uranium enrichment at five percent and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, to undertake intrusive inspections of its facilities if the West drops its sanctions.
Up to this point, Iran is assessed to have developed the capability to enrich uranium up to 20 percent, which is necessary for medical research. This assessment is backed by the IAEA at this point, although Israel believes Iran will reach a uranium enrichment level for nuclear weapons – 90 percent – within a few months.

The intriguing thing, however, is the red line Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu literally drew on a cartoon of a bomb with a lit fuse at the 90 percent level in his recent speech before the United Nations.
His demonstration either inadvertently or purposely undermined all of his brinkmanship comments over the past several months of an impending Israeli military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Until now, the Israeli government has claimed that Iran is approaching a "zone of immunity" in which a conventional military attack may not be possible and is looking to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, believing the Islamic republic is using its nuclear program to make nuclear weapons.

However, Iran as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, and as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, has a right to undertake uranium enrichment.

Currently, Iran is assessed by the intelligence community at being able to enrich up to 20 percent. Analysts say that to achieve the 90 percent level of weapons grade enrichment requires technology levels which Iran has not yet achieved.

Under the NPT, Iran could make all the components to make a nuclear weapon, but not put together all of those components into a nuclear bomb.
Analysts say that Iran isn't even near the stage of constructing an actual bomb which would have to undergo underground testing to determine its reliability. They add that Iran also lacks yet other technologies needed to then miniaturize a reliable nuclear weapon that could fit on a missile to deliver the weapon. Analysts estimate that Iran is years from such a capability.

Iran contends, however, that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Because of the international concern over Iran's use of its nuclear program to make nuclear weapons, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued fatwas, or religious edicts, against making nuclear weapons. Such fatwas carry the weight of law in the Muslim world.
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has stated that Iran is prepared to "institutionalize" Khamenei’s fatwas.

"We are willing to put in place further mechanisms," Salehi recently told the U.S. think-tank Council on Foreign Relations, referring to the five percent cap on enrichment and allowing intrusive IAEA inspections which it hasn't allowed to date.

In exchange, he wants the West to rescind its series of four sanctions it has imposed on the Iranian economy until Iran halts its nuclear enrichment efforts.

By intrusive inspections, the IAEA can enter a facility without first notifying Tehran.

Iran has begun to feel the effects of the sanctions on its economy as the value of its own currency, the rial, has plummeted against the value of the dollar and euro.

If Israel doesn't attack Iran prior to the U.S. elections in November, and if President Barack Obama should win, it gives him more flexibility to work with the Iranians which Israel contends is just buying the Islamic republic more time to develop enrichment up to the 90 percent level.

Ironically, it is the Western nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, to which Iran is a signatory – but Israel is not – that allows the Islamic republic to enrich up to that level, along with building other components that could comprise a nuclear weapon. The NPT forbids signatories from putting those components together into a workable nuclear weapon.

F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND’s G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He can be contacted at mmaloof@wnd.com.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Russian Attack Submarine Sailed Undetected in the Gulf of Mexico For Weeks!

FYI - From the Washington Free Beacon/Bill Gertz and LPTN.org.

This is what happens when we have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa needlessly, instead of concentrating on REAL national defense!

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"


Silent Running

Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say.
Russian Akula Submarine / AP
Russian Akula Submarine / AP
BY: 
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.
The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.
The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.
The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.
The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.
The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.
A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.
One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.
“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.
“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.
The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.
“Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.
“Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces,” Polmar said in an email.
The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.
Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.
The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.
Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.
Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, “It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”
The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.
The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.
The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.
In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on “enemy” strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.
Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.
A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets.
That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 type submarine or a more advanced Akula 2.
It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe.
Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis.
Makarov met with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. Dempsey questioned him about the Russian strategic bomber flights near U.S. territory.
The voyage of the submarine also could be part of Russian efforts to export the Akula.
Russia delivered one of its Akula-2 submarines to India in 2009. The submarine is distinctive for its large tail fin.
Brazil’s O Estado de Sao Paoli reported Aug. 2 that Russia plans to sell Venezuela up to 11 new submarines, including one Akula.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow’s military is working to set up naval replenishment facilities in Vietnam and Cuba, but denied there were plans to base naval forces in those states.
Asked if Russia planned a naval base in Cuba, Lavrov said July 28: “We are not speaking of any bases. The Russian navy ships serve exercise cruises and training in the same regions. To harbor, resupply, and enable the crew to rest are absolutely natural needs. We have spoken of such opportunities with our Cuban friends.” The comment was posted in the Russian Foreign Ministry website.
Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez. The ships also stopped in Cuba.
Russian Deputy Premier Dmitri Rogozin announced in February that Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030, along with new aircraft carriers.
Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force.
The submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and are equipped with the SSN-21 and SSN-27 submarine-launched cruise missiles, as well as SSN-15 anti-submarine-warfare missiles. The submarines also can lay mines.
The SSN-21 has a range of up to 1,860 miles.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

The American Legion's Illegal Immigration Reform Strategy Guide.

FYI-
*From the American Legion:
"The American Legion is opposed to any person or persons being in this country illegally, regardless of race, sex, creed, color or national origin. The organization believes the current laws governing immigration should be enforced impartially and equally.  The Legion’s Americanism Commission has developed a strategy to address illegal immigration."


American Legion - Illegal Immigration Reform Strategy Guide


-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Taking Some Time Off & Refocusing My Efforts! - PLEASE READ!

Hello All!

I hope this finds everyone doing well.  Just a quick note - I'm going to take some time off from this blog for a while.  I will still post here from time to time about different political, military, and veterans' issues, but I will be refocusing my efforts and using another blog for the majority of the time.  As many of you know, I'm very Pro Constitution, Pro Civil Liberties, and very much an advocate for the Separation of Church and State.  Because of that, with the help and blessing of ACT! For America, I am establishing an ACT! chapter in my area.  In addition to family, school, and work, this is something I really care about and plan on putting my effort into.  Please check out and follow my blog, and help spread the word.

Leland/Brunswick County (Wilmington Area), NC ACT! For America Chapter:
http://coastalnorthcarolinaactforamerica.blogspot.com/


Thanks,
Aaron
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser: Muslims Must Look In The Mirror.

FYI -
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"


The following commentary by M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD Founder and President appeared in print and online today at this link at the New York Post. Dr. Jasser discusses the opportunity which the proposed hearings on American Muslim radicalization pose for American Muslims as we look back at the lessons of 2010.  M. Zuhdi Jasser, a physician and a former US Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. info@aifdemocracy.org

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_muslims_must_look_in_the_mirror_g6HY8SYPEtYo8gHubxnNhI


alt

Updated: Thu., Dec. 30, 2010, 4:39 AM

alt

Why Muslims must look in the mirror

By M. ZUHDI JASSER
Last Updated: 4:39 AM, December 30, 2010
Posted: 10:51 PM, December 29, 2010

If 2010 was the year America finally woke up to political Islam's ne farious reach on US soil, with luck 2011 will be the year we launch an offensive against it. One way to begin that process is through hearings that Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the new chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, plans to hold on American Muslim radicalization.

Attention to this issue offers an opportunity for American Muslims to confront the radicalization problem and provide solutions -- as only they can.

My group, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, believes these hearings will shed light on the diversity of American Muslims, giving our community a chance to step from behind the veil of Muslim victimization and address head-on the need for long-overdue ideological reforms.

Alas, the announcement of the hearings has triggered heated denunciations by groups like ISNA, CAIR and MPAC, which try to deny and obfuscate the connection between "political Islam," or Islamism, and terror.
This year, the debate on the development of the Ground Zero mosque brought the discussion of political Islam to the front page of every newspaper. While raucous at times, it provided an opportunity for Muslims who don't toe the line of American Islamist organizations to present an alternative vision for American Muslims -- one based in American values and Muslim reform.

Unfortunately, political correctness still too often dominates incidents involving Islamists. This year, the Pentagon released a report on Maj. Nidal Hasan's Fort Hood attack, titled "Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood." The report was intended to convey to military commanders whatever lessons were learned from the incident, so as to prevent similar attacks in the future. Yet it never mentioned the word Islam or Muslim. Nowhere to be found was any dissection of Hasan's slide into militant Islamism or of his relationship with his homegrown jihadist mentor, Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Meanwhile, President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg used the Ground Zero mosque controversy to tell the more than 70 percent of Americans who oppose the mosque that they were either wrong or confused. Discourse over recent arrests of jihadists in Portland and Baltimore focused on Islamist claims of FBI entrapment, rather than overdue introspection and calls for reform. Worries of Muslim victimization still rule the day.

Our national inability to discuss religious issues honestly is keeping American Muslims from having to accept the reforms needed to defeat political Islam and bring our faith into modernity. The victimization mantra feeds more Muslim isolation and radicalization.

A recent global study by the Pew Research Center showed that Muslims are aligning themselves more and more with Islamism. Of course, most major American Muslim groups, such ISNA, CAIR and MPAC, were built on some strand of that ideology. But knowing where most American Muslims fall in the spectrum of Islamism-vs.-liberalism, as King hopes to find out in his hearings, would be a key step toward counterradicalization.

The fact is, we can't go into 2011 without a discernable strategy on how to defeat Islamist radicalization. House hearings on Muslim radicalization would only be the first step toward finally crafting a US offensive against political Islam.

Again, only liberty-minded Muslims working from within Muslim communities can counter the narrative of Muslim victimization. But America needs to be unashamed of taking the side of those Muslims who advocate reform against political Islam.

In 2011, more Americans need to understand that jihadism is a natural by-product of a political Islam that is incompatible with Western secular democracies based in liberty. America is at war with theocratic Muslim despots who seek the imposition of sharia and don't believe in the equality of all before the law, blind to faith. They detest the association of religious freedom with liberty.

We need a coordinated national strategy of offense that gives Muslim youth an Islamic counternarrative, that defends liberty and that separates mosque and state.

The idea of the Islamic state must be left for history. It is time to help usher in a modern era for Islam and Muslims. Our national security depends on it.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

The Liberty of Defense - Sworn To Support And Defend The Constitution; Not Land, Government Or Even People

Some good food for thought...

-ADY


The Liberty of Defense
Sworn To Support And Defend The Constitution; Not Land, Government Or Even People
By Steve Schippert | October 23, 2010


National Security and Defense are no longer apolitical issues. In reluctantly acknowledging this fact, more thinking and writing on political issues has gradually made its way into the ThreatsWatch space. To put it succinctly, it's not just about Defense. It's about what we defend.

There are two disparities at play in the American body politic that cause this deep politicization of Defense and National Security. The first is a wide disconnect between the leadership of both major parties - and to a greater degree the Democrat party - and the American voting public from which they have historically drawn their support. The second, a specific subset of the first but requiring its own elaboration, is the radical nature of the leadership of the Democrat Party.

When asked what it is exactly that I do and why, I've given many variations of the National Security answer. Passion for National Security is only a partial answer. The next question, though rarely asked, is and should be, "National Security to what ends?" Eight words explain it best and most concisely.

The Defense of Liberty - The Liberty of Defense.

The Defense of Liberty is straight forward and needs no elaboration. There are many patriots - and more and more each day - who have embraced the Defense of Liberty. But 'The Liberty of Defense' is much more revealing.

The Military Oath of Service begins, "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ... "

We do not swear explicitly to defend soil or borders. Nor do we swear explicitly even to defend people, citizens. We do not even swear explicitly to defend the nation explicitly as a geographic, social or economic entity. It could be said that these are implied, and indeed they are.

It is, however, absolutely vital to understand what it is that we do swear - explicitly - to support and defend: The Constitution of the United States. And as I had previously written, that oath stands honored - and, frankly, more thoroughly understood and respected - to this day, long after my 8 years of active duty service as a United States Marine.

The Oath was carefully written to ensure that the Constitution has guardians. Those guardians include not only those in military service, but also the President of the United States, members of both Houses of Congress and other civil servants. The various versions of oaths of service were never intended to simply defend the nation as a geographical entity. Nor, it should be consciously acknowledged, do they command the defense of its government.

The Constitution is the very codification of our Liberty and American Liberty has always been truly exceptional in the world in its scope and near-holy reverence. The only time it should not be exceptional is if and when other nations of the world embrace the same. Likewise, never should we squander or dismiss American Liberties in order to conform with perceived standards as set by other nations of the world.

And swearing to defend this - the exceptional idea, the very codification of Liberty, the heart and soul of the great American experiment - is the Liberty of Defense. The two are inseparably intertwined. To remove one from the other condemns Liberty to a memory in short order and reduces its Defense to just another military force on the globe protecting soil, people and power interests and little more.

Thankfully, more Americans are beginning to consciously think of more than a cracked bell when they hear the word Liberty. And, likewise, they are also beginning to think of more than just an old historical museum relic when they hear the name of its codification, the Constitution of the United States.

The critical and central importance of Liberty is again being recognized and no longer taken for granted by a majority of Americans. Americans of every race, color and creed have taken common cause in the Defense of Liberty.

And for men like me, we are driven by the Liberty of Defense: The fact that we have sworn to support and defend the very proclamation and codification of that uniquely American Liberty, not merely soil, borders, people or government itself. America is not its government nor its soil or borders. Our Constitution is what consititutes us - not land masses or any ethnic culture, as are the primary identifiers for so many nations in the world. America is Liberty and, on an order of magnitudes, its defense is much more difficult than that of merely borders and people.

Liberty requires that its defense never rest. For as difficult as defending that which exists may be, recovering that which is lost is an infinitely more daunting task. And to that extent, National Security and Defense are indeed no longer apolitical issues in the current political climate.

So may we each pause to reflect the vital necessity for the Defense of Liberty and, in so doing, acknowledge the very Liberty of Defense as so explicity and purposefully stated in the Oath of Service.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Rep. Myrick: Hezbollah Major Threat on Mexican Border.

FYI - Some good food for thought.

-Aaron


______________________________________________________________________________________

Rep. Myrick: Hezbollah Major Threat on Mexican Border

Thursday, 15 Jul 2010 08:12

By: Jim Meyers

Rep. Sue Myrick tells Newsmax it is “very frightening” that the Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah has been sending agents to Mexico — and some have already entered the United States across the porous border.

The North Carolina Republican has asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to set up a special task force to investigate the reports that Hezbollah is cooperating with drug cartels along the Mexican border.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Myrick — a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the GOP’s Deputy Whip — was asked what is known about Hezbollah’s threat to America.


“Our intelligence sources have really clarified that they are in Mexico, that there is an operation that is quite large in place there, and it’s very frightening to me because this is national security,” says Myrick, who was first elected in 1994.

“Yes, immigration’s a problem too, but this particular situation [involves] people who don’t like us for various reasons.

“We know some of them have gotten across the border in the past, and now we know that there are people from Iran who are going to Venezuela. They are actually learning Spanish, and then they come up through Mexico to cross our border. So they’re working in cahoots with Venezuela as well.”

About Hezbollah’s intentions in the U.S., Myrick says: “We don’t know. It used to be that most of those groups did not really target the United States. They were targeting other countries or they were staying inside their own area of influence. Now they are starting to target the United States and that’s my concern.

“I do want a task force of both U.S. and Mexican officials. Let’s get to the bottom of this and find out what is going on.

“The response I have received was a call that they would like to give me a private intelligence briefing because I’m on the Intelligence Committee. I said that would be fine, but I would like an answer about the task force first because once I get a briefing, I can’t talk about it.”

Sen. John Kyl, an Arizona Republican, has said he met privately with President Barack Obama and implored him to secure the border. Kyl claims Obama told him that if he did secure the border it would remove the incentive for comprehensive immigration reform or amnesty for illegals. Myrick says that “makes no sense whatsoever.”

She tells Newsmax: “It’s obvious that’s what he wants, amnesty. He’s said it over and over again. I don’t see it that way.

“Our responsibility at the federal government is to make sure that our borders are secure. Once the border is secure, like it is in some other places where we don’t have the problems that we do in the areas where it’s porous, then we’ll know who is in the country. We can control who comes into the country.

“It makes no sense to me whatsoever that you can’t secure the border because you can’t get amnesty.”

Myrick takes issue with Attorney General Eric Holder, who has filed suit against Arizona’s tough new law to battle illegal immigration.

“The federal government has not done its job,” she declares.
“Arizona is only trying to do what a state as the right to do, and that is to protect themselves.”

Turning to Iran, Myrick charges that the Obama administration is dragging its feet on dealing with the nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Republic.

“I think we should take a tougher stance and work harder with our partners in the world to make sure they do too,” she says.

The United Nations in its attempts to deal with Iran is “just a joke,” she adds. “They aren’t doing their job.”

Asked about the possibility that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own, Myrick responds:

“I think Israel has the right to defend themselves. That option is there.

“I hope it does not come to that, but there needs to be something done to have a tougher stand with Iran.

“They aren’t going to be our friends. You can’t convince them they’re going to be our friends. They don’t operate that way. They don’t want to be friends. They want to conquer the world.”




© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Tell Congress To Say "NO!" To The U.N. Small Arms Treaty!!!

Entering into a treaty like this could infringe on U.S. sovereignty, privacy, and 2ND Amendment rights! Write your representative and senators and/or visit the below web link and TAKE ACTION TODAY!!!

http://campaigns.ratepoint.com/campaigns/0542406fcc13296d75333cc234d2ff6c?r=6d3ceeef39756cb1ae396e9ad290daec

-Aaron

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Resigning From The ACLU: My Letter To ACLU President Susan Herman.




________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter Reads:

From The Desk of Aaron D. Yeargan
March 13, 2010
The Honorable Susan N. Herman, President
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 1004

Mrs. Herman:

Good morning Ma’am. I hope this letter finds you doing well. I have been a supporter of the ACLU for some time and an actual member since approximately August 2009. I wanted to write to you today concerning the ACLU’s position on trying 9/11 terrorists in U.S. Federal Court. As a Libertarian and Iraq War veteran, I want to voice my opposition to this proposal.
I would like to say that I have known, worked with, and served alongside of many peaceful, law abiding Muslims. However, the issue of Islamic extremists and Jihadists cannot be ignored. From the “Christmas Day Bomber” to the shooting at Fort Hood and the water poisoning plot at Fort Jackson, it is obviously apparent to me, if not the majority of Americans, that there is a Holy War being waged against this country. These were strategically chosen targets that, if hit, would have greatly damaged our economic and military infrastructure.

With all of that being said, how can the ACLU take the position that these individuals are mere criminals and not enemy combatants? I know many of my fellow Libertarians will disagree with me on this, but as enemy combatants, how can they be afforded the same rights as American citizens? Also, by trying these cases in the American court system, our citizens will be forced to pay for the trials with their tax dollars.

As someone who served in Iraq multiple times, I do believe that there are some innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay, but I do not believe American citizen funded trials are the answer at all. Personally, I believe that a congressionally sanctioned and overseen, joint commission with representatives from the State Department, Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security should thoroughly investigate each case. Individuals found to be innocent should be returned home, and those found to be true enemy combatants should be turned over to a military tribunal. Most importantly, Congress should have a “set in stone” timeline for this to take place, and any unclassified proceedings should be televised.

In closing, I know that people are not always going to agree with some positions taken by groups and organizations that they associate with, but because I strongly oppose this view, I cannot, in good faith and conscience, be associated with such an organization. Therefore, I hereby resign my membership in the American Civil Liberties Union. While I will always support and defend the constitutional rights and civil liberties of Americans of all races, backgrounds and creeds, I will never support the rights of those trying to harm my fellow citizens. I have enclosed my membership card with this letter. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Aaron D. Yeargan (Signed)

Friday, February 26, 2010

CNN Poll: Majority think government poses threat to citizens' rights.

CNN Poll: Majority think government poses threat to citizens' rights.
by Paul Steinhauser, CNN Deputy Political Director

February 26, 2010 7:54 a.m. EST
Washington (CNN) -- A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: Only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and nearly seven in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken, though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

Friday, February 19, 2010

More Terror Suspects Trying To Fly To The United States!

FYI...Some good food for thought

-Aaron


______________________________________________________________________________________
National security team fails to inspire confidence

Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour.

Ever since the botched Christmas Day plot to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, the Obama administration's national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they're doing.

So far, they're achieving the opposite, and they're needlessly adding some jitters in the process:

-- CIA Director Leon Panetta and other top officials agreed last week that an attack by al-Qaeda is likely in the next three to six months. The warning is bound to frighten the public, with no obvious benefit beyond the ability to say "I told you so."

-- Top administration officials revealed last week that bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was again cooperating with authorities. Great. But the news pretty much negates earlier claims that no intelligence was lost when Abdulmutallab was prematurely read his rights.

-- In Senate testimony, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair had a "Duh!" moment as he hit his forehead and acknowledged that authorities fumbled the initial questioning of Abdulmutallab by failing to call in the high-value interrogation group, which was created to question terrorism suspects. Refreshingly candid, yes, but not a statement that inspires confidence. Especially when the same day, at another Senate hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that the high-value unit was still in its "formation stages" and that "there was no time" to get it to Detroit.

All of this follows the string of blunders that allowed Abdulmutallab to carry explosives onto a U.S.- bound plane in the first place. The chaos that followed his arrest now looks just as bad.

According to news accounts, Abdulmutallab was questioned by, and cooperated with, the FBI for a grand total of 50 minutes before going into surgery. When he emerged, he became combative, asked for a lawyer and was read his rights. (At the time, remember, no one knew whether other bombers had been dispatched simultaneously.)

A decision of such magnitude should have involved the top brass in intelligence and law enforcement. But Blair, Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have all testified they were not consulted. Mueller said the decision to read the suspect his Miranda rights was made by agents in the field.

In television appearances on Sunday, John Brennan, the White House deputy national security adviser, chafed at the criticism the intelligence community is getting. He said it was demoralizing and urged cheerleading instead. But cheerleading doesn't get problems fixed, and it's undeniable that there are plenty to address.

Some problems, such as the post-arrest misjudgments, are of the Obama administration's making. Others, such as the intelligence failures preceding the incident, are institutional. There is, however, a common denominator: slipshod coordination leading to bad judgment.

If Panetta is right about another attack, there's not much time for national security officials to get their act together.

Tell Google Not to Enter Into an Agreement With the NSA!!!

Tell Google Not to Enter Into Agreement With NSA

Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that Google — the world’s largest Internet search company — is negotiating an information-sharing agreement with the National Security Agency (NSA) — the world’s largest network for routine, mass communications surveillance.

The partnership is supposed to help protect Google’s networks, but the ramifications of companies like Google working with the NSA are frightening.

The NSA — a component of the Department of Defense — is an intelligence collection agency with few effective checks against abuse, and no public oversight of its activities. The NSA sucks up the equivalent of the contents of the Library of Congress every six to eight hours, every single day. In the last decade, the NSA’s dragnet, suspicionless surveillance has targeted everyday Americans, in violation of the law and the Constitution. (To lean more about NSA spying, download our fact sheet on “America’s Surveillance Society” by visiting the below link).

If companies like Google think they need the government’s help to secure their networks, then a civilian agency needs to step up to the task. Cybersecurity for the American people should not be handed over to a military spy agency, one that is insulated from public oversight and has a history of secretly exploiting vulnerabilities, rather than fixing them.

Concerned? You can take action today by sending a letter to Google, letting them know that you object to such a deal and value your privacy online.


ACLU "America's Serveillance Society" Fact Sheet:
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file381_37802.pdf

ACLU Write A Letter to Google Project:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=1961&page=UserAction&s_src=UNW100001ACT&s_subsrc=bor&JServSessionIdr004=bhmniyrxi3.app224a

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Cal Cunningham on National Security.

National Security


Protecting the homeland
As an Iraq War veteran and eleven-year member of the Reserves, Cal understands the importance of a robust national security program to the peace and security of our country. He recognizes that in order to meet the challenges of the 21st Century, we must adopt a new doctrine that brings to bear the full power of the United States– including the so-called “soft” powers of moral, legal, economic, diplomatic and cultural influence.

To ensure our national security, we must:

1. Clearly define and pursue our national security interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, by fully implementing counterinsurgency strategy, seizing momentum, protecting the population, allowing no geographic safe-haven for Al Qaeda, building Afghani capacity to secure itself, and turning over the security mission as soon as possible.

2. Develop a specialized civilian corps to complement the uniformed services and provide logistics, civil governance, public works, information technology, and linguist services. This corps must operate under the blanket of U.S. law under a unified chain of command, in place of private contractors.

3. Fund, train, and equip the best fighting force, including following through on increases in end-strength, ending “stop-loss”, and retooling and re-setting our Reserves and National Guard, which have been strained by two concurrent wars in the Middle East.

4. Conclude the Mission in Iraq. With Honor. Period.

http://www.CalForNC.com

Thursday, January 14, 2010

You Will Not Believe How Much $$$ We Spent On Foreign Oil In 2009!!!

Hello All!

This is a must read! Think about it - This much dependency on foreign oil is not only an economic issues, but a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE!!!

-Aaron


_____________________________________________________________________________________

From the desk of T. Boone Pickens


Friends,

I’m going to get straight to the point of this email.

We imported 4.35 billion barrels of oil in 2009 at a cost of over half a million dollars per minute.

Yes, you read that correctly.

4.35 BILLION barrels imported in 2009.

Over $500,000 dollars spent per MINUTE on foreign oil.

That’s another $265 BILLION siphoned out of America’s struggling economy, and we still haven’t adopted a real energy plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.


For this reason I’m going back on the airwaves with a new television advertisement this week. In the ad, I encourage Americans to contact their Members of Congress immediately in support of the NAT GAS Act. You can view the new ad here: http://www.pickensplan.com/media/video/

If you haven’t already signed the Energy Independence NOW petition, I encourage you to visit http://www.pickensplan.com/petition/ and sign it as soon as possible. If you’ve already signed it, I ask that you forward this information to your family and friends. This is important!




55,000 people have signed the petition in the past week. Let’s keep sending the message to Congress over and over and over again until they finally hear us and pass legislation to end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

We WILL get this done.

-Boone