About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

IT IS TIME TO RECOGNIZE THAT OBAMA IS MAKING THE USA LESS SAFE

Saturday, September 26, 2009

 





Despite the fact that in the last week terrorist threats have ben reported at least three times. The latest was friday when a 19 year old Muslim was apprehended trying to blow up a 65 story ofice building in Dallas, Texas.
Fox News is reporting that: A Jordanian man living outside Dallas and an ex-convict who wrote letters to John Walker Lindh (the American turned Muslim terrorist )were in custody on Friday after each tried to blow up what they thought were vehicles packed with explosives outside a Texas skyscraper and an Illinois courthouse.
Public records show Finton was in an Illinois prison from 1999 until 2005 aggravated robbery and aggravated battery convictions. After getting out, Finton told his parole officer he had converted to Islam, the affidavit said.


AND an immigrant from Afghanistan who lived legally in Denver was plotting one of the most serious terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001, federal authorities say.
A law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday that Zazi had associates in New York who were in on the plot. Court papers say that during the summer, Zazi and three unidentified associates bought "unusually large quantities" of hydrogen peroxide and acetone — a flammable solvent found in nail-polish remover — from beauty supply stores in the Denver area, products with names like Ion Sensitive Scalp Developer and Clairoxide.


Najibullah Zazi, 24, made his home in the United States, working as a Denver airport shuttle driver in Colorado and owning a coffee cart in New York City.
Authorities say Zazi scoured the Web and visited beauty supply stores in a hunt for chemicals needed to build bombs for Al Qaeda.

They characterized the suspected plot against New York City subways and trains as one of the most significant threats to the United States since 9/11.


Despite these attempted terrorist threats,the news from Washington is not that we will be beafing up our security on our southern border. But reducing the already thin line of defense against terrorists and illegals from pouring over our border! Gues where we will be sending border pratrol agents? The Canadian border!
Where the Canadian border service has not had to fire the only weapon they have, a hand gun, for almost a year.
Agency officers are stationed at more than 1,200 locations across Canada, including 14 international airports and 119 land crossings.


Canadian guards who began to carry sidearms in July 2007 are now pulling them from their holsters about three times a month!

The report says no guns were actually fired in the 34 cases where the sidearm was used last year. Batons were brought out five times but never used.
Pepper spray was discharged four out of the seven times it was displayed to aggressive travellers. No one was seriously injured in any of the incidents.

Compare this with the violence at our southern border where drug cartels carry automatic machine guns.

The Border Patrol is responsible for securing a total of 8,607 miles of border, including the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border from Washington state to Maine, and sectors of coastline in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.And we are sending guards to the Canadian border. Has this administration lost it. collective mind!

In the May 7 update of its performance review, DHS said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2009 was to have 815 of the 8,607 miles of border for which the agency is responsible under “effective control.” The review also said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2010 was to again have 815 miles of border under “effective control,” meaning DHS was not planning to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year.

However, Acting Deputy Assistant Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Todd Owen told a House committee in July that the Border Patrol already had 894 miles of border under effective control as of May 31 of this year. These 894 miles, Owen said, included 697 miles on the Mexican border, 32 miles on the Canadian border and 165 miles in the coastal sectors.

The entire U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long,( and horray, we have 697 miles covered!!)according to the International Boundary and Water Commission. While 697 of those miles are now under “effective control,” according to the Border Patrol, 1,257 miles are not under “effective control.”

The Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.

A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year.” Why don't the Obama administration just put welcome signs all across the Mexican border!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IF ONLY THE SECURITY POLICE WERE ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS!

BEING WELL PREPARED AND WELL ARMED ARE THE KEYS TO SAFETY




If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and will never be. ~ Thomas Jefferson

At least 10 terrorists, having arrived by small craft on the shores of Mumbai, began to sow death and destruction at will across India's financial capital.They were at a distinct advantage because of the lack of fire power in those charged with security and the police force within the City of Mumbi.


What resulted was three days of battle between well armed Muslim terrorists and poorly armed security force. What happened in Mumbai shows just how a small but ruthless group of skilled militants, attacking multiple targets in quick succession, managed to bring one of the world's largest cities to its knees. The human toll -- currently at 174 fatalities, including nine terrorists -- was exacerbated by the Indian authorities' lack of preparedness, and failure to arm those charged with securing the safety of the citizens and visitors to this vacation "paradise" close to the Taj Mahal.The chain of events also points to just how vulnerable any major city can be to this type of urban warfare if it is not prepared!


At about 9:45 p.m., two gunmen, slender and in their mid-20s, ran up the circular driveway at the entrance to the Trident Hotel. They shot the security guard and two bellhops. The hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government, according to the hotel company's chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi. The gunmen raced through the marble-floored lobby, past the grand piano into the adjoining Veranda restaurant, firing at the guests and shattering the windows.

At the end of the lobby, they burst into a bar called the Opium Den, shooting dead a hotel staff member. Then they ran after a group of guests who tried to escape through a rear service area. They killed them, too.

They killed four of six friends who live in south Mumbai and had just settled down at a table near the front door. One member of the group, a mother of two, threw herself to the ground and shut her eyes, pretending to be dead. The men circled the restaurant, firing at point blank range into anyone who moved before rushing upstairs to an Indian restaurant called Kandahar.

"Remember Babri Masjid?" one of the gunmen shouted, referring to a 16th-century mosque built by India's first Mughal Muslim emperor and destroyed by Hindu radicals in 1992.
The policemen were badly outgunned. The gunmen killed one officer and escaped down the stairs, into a narrow alley that separates Cama Hospital from another hospital called GT.

In the alley, the state of Maharashtra's anti terrorism chief, Hemant Karkare, sat in a police SUV packed with fellow officers, trying to coordinate a response to the mayhem engulfing the city. Creeping up, the two militants sprayed the vehicle with gunfire.

The officers appear to have died before any of them had a chance to fire back. The wall and metal blinds behind the van's spot are riddled with bullets. Not a single bullet mark could be seen by a reporter in the area from which the terrorists fired.

B.S. Sidhu, head of the Railway Protection Force for the Mumbai region, says that while some officers tried to fight back, there was little his force could do. Most police officers at the station -- as they are throughout India -- were unarmed or carried only bamboo sticks known as lathis. More than 40 people, including three police officers, were killed in just a few minutes, authorities said. The wounded survivors screamed for help amid acrid smoke, piles of slumped, bloodied bodies and spilling suitcases.SOURCE:Niraj Sheth in Mumbai and Krishna Pokharel in New Delhi

Here in the USA there are those who would take away the firearms of the citizens, a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This massacre that happened in a vacation city in India could have been snipped in the bud if there were not only armed police, but a few dozen inhabitants who had the right to keep guns in their place of business and homes. The terrorists knew full well that the resistance would be minimal at best, because of the Pacifist nature of Indian authorities.

Let us not give in to those who would take away our guns. Then only criminals would have guns, and thank God we have a semi-vigilant Homeland Security force. If we let down our guard and follow those who believe They can just talk to terrorist and everything will be alright. We will have the carnage that was wrought upon the people in Mumbi.
The price of freedom is vigilance a smart man once said!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA MAKES A PROMISE HE CANNOT KEEP

Monday, May 19, 2008

OBAMA'S FIX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A HOAX!



ONCE AGAIN THE "EMPTY SUIT" FROM ILLINOIS HAS MADE A PROMISE THAT HE EITHER KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW AS A U.S.SENATOR, THAT HE CAN NOT DO!

In a speech given in Oregon, Obama promised that if elected he will protect The Social Security Trust Fund. A fund that does not exist, but rather is a "fund" filled with promissory notes from the government to the government. The "fund" is a misnomer for the deficit that the government has created by lumping all taxes including social security taxes into the general fund that is used to pay for the Socialist WELFARE society that our government has operated since the years of LBJ.


The Social Security system is primarily a "PAY AS YOU GO" system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system. In the early 1980s, the financial projections of the Social Security Administration indicated near-term revenue from payroll taxes would not be sufficient to fully fund near-term benefits, thus the Congress raised the possibility of benefit cuts. Instaed they increased the taxes taken from your paycheck for social security.


The following is an excerpt from Wikapedia: "Though widely used, the term "Social Security Trust Fund" is something of a misnomer, as the Social Security Administration of the United States actually oversees two separate funds that hold federal government debt obligations related to what are traditionally thought of as Social Security benefits. The larger of these funds is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay future benefits to retirees and their survivors.[2] The second, smaller fund is the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay benefits to those who are judged by the federal government to be disabled and incapable of productive work, as well as to their spouses and dependents.[3]


" The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt.[1] The portion of the national debt that is not considered "publicly held" represents the obligations incurred by the government to itself, the bulk of which consists of the government's obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund".
In 2001, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill upset some people by simply telling the truth. He had the temerity to say that the Social Security Trust Fund has no tangible assets. It was empty!



Knowing that the Trust Fund is a figment of our collective imagination. There’s no money, only IOUs there. It doesn’t exist, Obama has the gaul to say he will protect the "fund"!
Every cent that the American people pay in FICA payroll taxes is immediately spent. Anything left over after the current retirees are paid off goes into the general treasury where it is used, first, to make up any operating shortfall, and then to pay the government’s creditors. The Social Security Trust Fund is credited for that money in the form of nonnegotiable notes.


While speaking to a group of senior citizens in Gresham, Oregon,( a group he needs to win in November) the man who appears to be the Democratic presidential nominee raised the thorny Social Security issue. He criticized the George Bush/John McCain plan and offered one of his own.Obama wants higher earners to pay more into the system -- to "protect" senior citizens "who have earned the right to retire with dignity." "A secure retirement is no longer a guarantee for the middle class," he said -- "because Washington is not working to preserve this fundamental part of the American dream."



Invoking "the promise that FDR made," Obama said that when he's president, he will "fight every single day" to protect Social Security, which is coming under increasing strain as more Baby Boomers retire.First, Obama said he would "preserve the Social Security Trust Fund" -- by not spending money raised through payroll taxes on other things. Another example of a politicain who promises anything even if it is a lie, to get votes!


He said he would make sure that "money that's coming in for Social Security stays for Social Security." (Al Gore proposed a similar "lock-box" policy when he was running for president.)Unlike Sen. John McCain, Obama said he believes that privatizing Social Security is a "bad idea," and "I won't stand for it as president."

Some one should tell him the President doesn't control the budget, Congress does that. But since this is just another of his promises, we must assume that if (God forbid) he is elelected, will be just another campaign promise he fails to produce.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »