national security

Matt Kennard of Salon reports on how the army has lowered its standards and is allowing in more white supremacists and neo-Nazis. His article is entitled  Neo-Nazis are in the Army now. Some will also be outside the Ed Sullivan Theater on Tuesday.

World Net Daily has published an article which includes the March 26, 2009 interdepartmental memorandum prepared by DHS for local law enforcement regarding the "extremist" groups of potential domestic terrorists.  The list is so lengthy it took over 10 pages in order to outline them all. 

You most likely are on the list, since it doesn't appear they left anyone out, unless you are a government employee drone or work in the mainstream media.

There was an interesting paragraph regarding who it was that actually identified these potential terrorists groups:

"Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials andunclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops withDHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism inthe United States."

I wonder if these "intelligence analysts" got their degrees online?  There is now an online university that is cashing in on this booming surveillance industry offering courses that can be completed in the comfort of your own home for less than it costs for two years at the average technical college.

The memo, Ms. Napoliano claims, was immediately yanked.  But, of course, it does appear that many local and state authorities mustn't have gotten that message prior to the Missouri memo surfacing, nor was it addressed in any fundamental way after the tea parties, other than apologies made to the American Legion, a Congressionally created veterans organization.

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

Recently an article was published in CNN Money quoting the Air Transport Association, an association of executives from the airline industry, predicting there would be approximately 7% fewer airline passengers this summer due to the economic conditions now in the United States.

I would state as a former primarily vacation airline passenger that the reduction in Americans traveling during the summer months has declined for discretionary travel steadily since 9/11.

Not out of fear, but due to the fact now that traveling to vacation destinations for many Americans is more hassle free driving than flying anymore.  Driving to California from Arizona takes six hours by car, but now can take just as long or longer by air.

It isn't simply the expense involved, it is the invasive security procedures now conducted for domestic travel in the United States that is primarily to blame, in this writer's view.

It has gotten to the point where the surveillance industry in this country is one of the fastest growing industries, and largest stakeholders in government contracts.

So lucrative has this industry become and vital to the U.S. government domestic surveillance program that the Department of Homeland Security is now purchasing, with stimulus monies, full body scanners for major domestic airports, to be used primarily against its own citizens due to the free entry and exit passes awarded international travelers during and prior to the Bush Administration.

Since most of the incidents which have compromised American citizen's security have been from foreigners as demonstrated by 9/11 and the shoe bomber incident, the focus on domestic travel rather than international security does seem backward, since "foreigners" actually travel from outside the U.S. in order to get here in the first place, or breach the U.S. borders and enter illegally through our borders with Canada and Mexico.

At the present time it take no less than two full hours prior to flight time in order to undergo the security checks for both passengers and baggage.  And though it was a British citizen responsible for the shoe bombing incident, all domestic travelers in the U.S. are now required to remove even their shoes before boarding.

That doesn't take into consideration the amount of time that is also lost waiting on the tarmacks for flights to depart or arrive due to the amount of both domestic and international flights, many of which are less than half full.

Deregulation of our national airports has actually resulted in more pollution, and higher costs in the long run.  And crowded airports that have made most vacations anything but relaxing.

In fact, since my last experience flying to a funeral for a relative on the East Coast from my home in the West that took more than twelve hours to complete with the new "shoe removal" requirements, I haven't flown in four years.

The American people were not the cause of 9/11, yet it is the American people who are now being strip searched and monitored in ever increasing degrees domestically, while the international airport procedures are becoming less and less secure with each passing year.

I guess so that at least the next potential international terrorist is not denied the opportunity to visit Disneyland, or attend the next global corporate board meeting.

Expect to now be charged more and more fees in order to take your baggage with you.  It appears banking practices have now infiltrated the airline industry.

Soon, I'm sure, there will be additional fees instituted for those bag lunches, and the privilege of those xrays prior to boarding at the security checks.  Also charges for the upgrades for the shoe removal procedures in order to now track your carbon footprints. 

We wouldn't want to interfere with our "free trade," agreements, or the "free market" competitive airline industry and their profit margins in order to effectively reduce that non-existent excess carbon instead in perhaps restricting U.S. international ports of entry and flights, now would we? 

Apparently not if it affects the lucrative gadget industry stakeholders and their economic growth at the cost of the American taxpayers obviously.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/15/news/economy/summer_air_travel/index.htm

 It seems the democrats are not done in dividing the country. Their latest "idea" comes from Senator Pat Leahy who wants to create a "truth commission" about the 8 years of the Bush administration.

You can read the full story at  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/16/democrats-split-leahys-bush-administration-truth-commission/

Now it seems that no major networks besides the FoxNews site has even picked up the story.Probably because they think it is not worth. However,I believe that such ideas should be "killed" before they are put into effect.

As such,Conservative America is launching its 2nd online operation called "Against Leahy's Truth Commission"

Please read  http://americaconservative.ning.com/forum/topics/operation-against-leahys-truth for details on the operation and to learn how you can contribute

Thank you

Avguste

Conservative America Founder

http://americaconservative.ning.com

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News: I received these first words from a reader and wondered how I could use them. Well this weekend's news provided the opportunity.

"Something to think about. Just a few points to ponder. Anyone who's gone through the Security Clearance procedures in the Military" (even Gen. Colin Powell), FBI, CIA, Secret Service or other agency requiring securing, processing and handing of classified information and documents "can verify that this is a valid point to ponder: If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"

Kind of makes you wonder where General / Former Sec. of State Colin Powell's head was at when he endorsed Obama. Powell didn't resign his commission and therefore he is still responsible to his oath of office. Upon what valid basis did he support a person for Commander-in-Chief who may well have been disqualified for military service, etc. A man who used hard drugs which would not be waived for a commission as an officer. A man who has been associated in his past and present life with a former anarchist, shady Chicago back room deals, a black supremacist pastor, a communist mentor, and close family (blood) relatives and foreign leaders in an African country with ties to radicals and terrorists. It is beyond reasonable belief that one of our former popular Generals who served as a Republican leader and was sought by his party to consider running for president would now endorse Obama.

Obama's stated beliefs and principles are so diametrically different from those previously espoused by Powell. Also, Obama's actions and associations would not have been "becoming for a junior officer" under Powell's command. As a retired officer, I am still reeling from the above thoughts. Surely race could not have been a factor in Powell's decision. And yet, Powell related in his public endorsement that 'the prospect of Obama becoming the first African American president would 'electrify the world.'" More disturbing is the fact that Powell "expressed disappointment" of McCain's selection of a woman - Gov. Sarah Palin - to be his vice presidential running mate. In 2000, Powell campaigned for John McCain for President and may very well feel betrayed for not being selected for the VP nomination. One wonders at this late endorsement about Powell's feelings on a woman being selected over either Powell or another a person Powell would have approved of as VP. Powell calls Biden a good choice, when Biden and Powell were seldom on the same page on core issues or values.

Powell became a 4-star General, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, national Security advisor and Secretary of State under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W, Bush. Now this singular decision made by Powell to publicly influence voters for Obama over McCain, a fellow military man who "really served" his country, is almost too much to take-in. And the alleged reason for Powell's endorsement - McCain selected a woman for VP and Obama as a black president may electrify the world. Powell's decision left many feeling like the people must have felt when their "Knight" lost their "shining armour."

Yes, Powell has the right to vote and support whoever he wishes but now he joins the ranks of people like Wesley Clark, as empty suits seeking another moment of fame. My suggestion to all is "THINK, Before YOU VOTE!" The choice: Obama the young smooth talking inexperienced socialist who is also an anti-traditional family values advocate or McCain the older but scarred proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is a maverick by speaking the truth even within his own party. A maverick who chose a person - yes a woman - outside of Washington politics to help him stand firm for the American people against the onslaught of a Democrat controlled Senate and House led by an inept Harry Reid and the "beyond the pale" Nancy Pelosi. Again, "THINK -- THINK, Before YOU VOTE!"

The Obama quote is, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

This was slipped into a speech addressing public service, and I'm going to have to confess that I'm dumbfounded. What in the world is he proposing? A non-military security force that is funded the same as the miltary? What are their powers and why are civilians being put in charge of national security? Why shouldn't we rely on our military to achieve national securiy objective? Isn't that's the whole reason for having a military. This needs some serious explaining. Any new government organization comparable in size and funding to the military would need explaining, but a civilian national security force is radical and illogical.

As we approach the inauguration of a new president, the importance of a strong national security/terrorism policy – thank god for FISA - is without question one of the most vital and crucial issues in the campaign. In that vein, I want to share some thoughts about a really powerful movie I recently watched, titled Obsession.

Obsession takes a hard look at the near-critical levels of Islamofacism in the Middle East, and provides a scathing critique of the potential for disaster if these threats – which have been building for years – are not taken seriously. Featuring biting commentary from noted Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, Obsession scrutinizes the rise in terrorist thought, the haunting parallels between modern terrorist cells and Nazism – a tie that I was not aware of before watching this movie (quite eerie similarities) - and the growing pervasiveness of Arab extremists in the West. Here's a clip from the film noting the Nazi/Islamofacist ties:

To be sure, Obsession is not an anti-Islam movie; instead it emphasizes quite credibly that the extremists are a minority, albeit a growing and dangerous one. It’s thought provoking; it presents itself as a display of facts in the form of real footage, and opinions of experts instead of a sensationalist “you need to be afraid” news pitch; conversely, the interviews are of academics and moderate Muslims, not fear mongering pundits.

It was rather stomach churninging to see children being pressured to lay down their lives in the name of Allah, explaining how they would like to set GWB on fire, and bomb the U.S. To be sure, the Left can’t admit that the surge worked, and Al-Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, nearly decimated - they remain shockingly unaware of the gravity of the dangers that exist around the globe. These dangers are addressed and analyzed in Obsession, a film that provides a telling – and ominous – look into the ever-growing world of Arab extremists.