Archive for the ‘National Security’ Category

In a sickening and frightening act of jihad, “animal rights” fanatics attempted to murder a California scientist who was performing biomedical research at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Read more about this despicable act of terrorism here, here and here. CBS News reports:

One scientist and his family, including two small children, were forced to flee from a second-story window Saturday after a firebomb was lit on their front porch, filling the off-campus house with smoke, Santa Cruz police said. An adult was treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

It gets worse, when the North American Animal Liberation press office issued a fatwa.

“It’s regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments,” press office spokesman Jerry Vlasak said in the statement.

(Read more after the leap) (more…)

…reminds me of the Democrats response to soaring gas and energy prices, the war in Iraq, national security, the economy, ect. and Bluto’s reaction is how I wish I could respond sometimes.

John Belushi (may he rest in peace) brings you your Friday open thread.

YouTube Direct 

(H/T to Mark Warner and his snazzy new website for the video)

In the Presidential race, some noise has been made over the last few days about President Bush’s comparison of negotiation with terrorists and radicals to the appeasement of Nazi Germany. Obama apparently thinks that the President Bush was talking about him and has stated that he is willing to debate McCain on foreign policy “any place, any time”.

John Bolton has written an editorial in the Wall Street Journal where he suggests that McCain “should accept that challenge today.” Bolton goes on to state why Obama’s foreign policy idea of negotiating with all our enemies is bad:

Quote below the fold: (more…)

President Bush stood at the podium, blinking back tears and struggling to utter the words. Finally, he gestures with his hand and a couple in late middle age moves towards the front of the room where they will receive their son’s posthumously awarded Medal of Honor. The room is filled with dignitaries and guests, some of them members of the elite Navy unit known as the SEALs.

The group would not be gathered there if it wasn’t for the heroic actions of Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL who sacrificed his lifein Iraq in order to protect his fellow SEALs and defend his country.

The day is September 29, 2006 and the coalition forces have been battling the enemy all morning. As the afternoon came, the SEALteam guarding the western flank of the operations in Ar Ramadi shifted it’s position slightly in order to be better prepared to fend of likely enemy attacks.

MA2 Michael Monsoor was positioned with his heavy automatic weapon on an outcropping of roof that affording him and two SEAL snipers a good view of the area. As the threesome kept a vigilant watch for enemy activity, an unobserved enemy fighter hurled a hand grenade onto their position, where it bounced off of Monsoor’s chest. There were three people, one live grenade, and one escape route. The only person who could escape before the inevitable blast was Michael Monsoor.

Monsoor did not abandon his comrades.

(Read more below the fold) (more…)

Editor’s Note: Tom Rose, one of the candidates who ran during the GOP nominating process for Tuesday’s special election, has written the below article on Democratic congressional candidate Andre Carson’s faith and the role of a candidate’s faith in politics.

By: Tom Rose

While both candidates for Tuesday’s special election to Congress have explained their positions on some important issues, there is a virtual media blackout preventing discussion of perhaps the most important and certainly most uncomfortable issue of this short campaign. That issue is religion.

Democrat Andre Carson is a recent convert to Islam. He proud of his faith and to his credit, appears both happy and willing to answer any questions the media asks him. The problem is that media isn’t asking any questions. Why not?

Is it because the media is worried that discussion of Carson’s Muslim faith would focus unfair attention upon a religious minority? Is it worried that asking him specific questions might sound too much like a constitutionally forbidden “religious test”? Neither explanation holds water since neither explanation prevented an aggressive, even belligerent focus on Mormonism during Mitt Romney’s recent presidential campaign.

Here is a thought. Maybe the list of murdered journalists, ransacked newspapers, torched embassies and whole countries subjected to crippling international pressures by millions of “aggrieved” Muslims has so intimidated even our local media that they now willingly impose upon themselves the very censorship that extremist Muslims demand when ever they are “offended”. Maybe the media showed none of the “sensitivity” to Mormons that it self righteously offers to Muslims during the Romney campaign because they did not fear violent outbursts of “Mormon Rage”?

Since many of the most prominent positions of influence and authority within the Muslim world are filled by people who openly call for the violent overthrow of the United States, the destruction of Western civilization and the establishment of a global Muslim caliphate, determining precisely where Mr. Carson stands vis-à-vis the leaders of his religion is not just a legitimate demand, it is an essential one. If we as voters are not entitled to ask Carson what role Islam plays in his thinking about public policy and national security, then when are we entitled to ask him?

[More After the Fold] (more…)

By: Brian Sikma 

On Tuesday, March 11th voters in Indiana’s 7th Congressional District will go to the polls in a special election to replace the late Congresswoman Julia Carson. The candidates set before them are Andre Carson (D), Jon Elrod (R) and Sean Shepard (L). For the past few weeks we’ve seen articles and heard news stories about this or that fact of the life histories of Mr. Carson and Mr. Elrod. The public is well aware of the general political affiliations of these two candidates and hopefully possesses some vague knowledge of where they stand one at least one or two issues.

There are similarities between the two major candidates; similarities that cause me to dislike both of them. However, on one very important issue one candidate in particular has adopted a disturbing stance. Andre Carson, a Muslim, has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. In this time of great debate about America’s role in the world and specifically our role in defeating Islamic terrorists, it is utterly vital that individuals who, well meaning though they may be, push for a policy that would be a catastrophe for our national security are not sent to Washington to vote on critical pieces of legislation that impact our future.

Yet beyond perhaps a mention or two of this “out of Iraq” stance on the part of Mr. Carson, the mainstream media has failed to carefully touch on a very important underlying issue: Mr. Carson’s Islamic faith. It should not be assumed that Mr. Carson’s Muslim beliefs automatically tie him to those evil thugs who, in the name of their Islamic faith, engage in atrocities and periodically seek to force their brand of faith on anyone, anywhere.

[Read More Below] (more…)

As long expected, complete with the use of American soldiers as props in a campaign photo op.

From WISH TV:

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - Baron Hill wants to keep his seat in Congress. Monday morning he filed for re-election.

Hill currently serves southern Indiana. He went to the Secretary of State’s office on Monday to file the proper paperwork.

Hill and former Congressman Mike Sodrel have clashed for the 9th district house seat three times so far and Hill expects another strong challenge.

“You know one of the things that I want to do is elevate the level of discourse in this so it’s not so nasty as it was the last time. And I’m going to be reaching out to my opponents so that we conduct ourselves in a better fashion,” said Rep. Baron Hill.

Hill is now heading to Georgia to visit with Indiana national guard members who will head to Iraq soon.

How about Baron starts by conducting himself in a better fashion?

He can begin by not using Hoosier National Guard members as a backdrop for his reelection bid, particularly when he has a demonstrated history of not caring one bit about them.

I also find it hard to believe that Baron Hill wants to elevate the level of discourse in the 9th District and prevent things from being nasty.

After all, he proclaimed on television last time that “negative ads work.”

Take a look for yourself:

YouTube Direct 

EDIT: I have heard from Hoosiers soldiers deployed to Georgia that they have met the enemy, err, Baron, and they were not impressed. He apparently spent the whole time walking around talking with a group of officers.
(more…)

Last week Congress voted on whether or not the FISA law should be brought into the 21st Century.  FISA, a law governing the use of wiretaps and other measures used in surveillance of foreign individuals, was enacted in 1978 and it contains some serious loopholes that terrorists and their accomplices can use to escape detection.  In order to prevent another terrorist attack on the United States, FISA had to be modified after 9/11.  After the Democrats took control of Congress the law expired and Democrats decided that the political hot potato (so-called warrant-less wiretapping) was a little to hot to warrant a long term solution. 

In late January Congress passed a 15 day extension of the law.  That extension ran out last week so Congress once again had the chance to permanently update our intelligence laws for the 21st Century.  Unfortunately, House Democrats were either confused about what needs to take place or were apathetic to passing legislation that would protect the American people.  Two of Indiana’s very strong Republican candidates currently running against incumbent Democrats took the opportunity this vote provided to clarify how they differed from their opponents on the issue of national security.

Down in the 9th district Mike Sodrel had this to say about the vote:

“It is irresponsible for House Democrats to refuse to move the Senate’s bipartisan bill and let the Protect America Act expire.

“Democrats in Congress have decided to go home instead of doing their job by providing the tools our intelligence people need to protect Americans from terrorists”.

Up in the 2nd district Luke Puckett had this to say about the subject:

“Without the act in place, vital programs would be plunged into uncertainty and delay, and capabilities would continue to decline. Under the Protect America Act, we obtained valuable insight and understanding, leading to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks. Expiration would lead to the loss of important tools our workforce relies on to discover the locations, intentions and capabilities of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets abroad.”

Puckett’s opponent, Joe Donnelly (D), played an interesting role in last week’s events.  On Wednesday morning Donnelly bucked party leadership and joined the Republicans on a roll call vote on the subject.  In the afternoon, however, Donnelly changed his position and joined his party leadership in the afternoon vote on the bill.  Either Joe Donnelly doesn’t know what his position is or he’s just not interested in protecting the American people and providing our national intelligence agencies with the legal tools that they need.

This fall the choice for voters accross America will be clear: The Republican candidates have pledged to do whatever it takes to win the defining conflict of our era, the Democratic candidates have continually failed to decisivly act on key proposals that have real consequences for our security.
 

 By: Brian Sikma

Remember what we were told at the beginning of the 110th Congress? Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declared that with the Democrats in control Congress would be returning to a 5 day work week. Presumably this decision was made to show that now that the Democrats ruled the Hill, the peoples business would be accomplished. This of course all being contingent on the people wisely agreeing with the Democrats ideas. Well, the work week that started Monday, Jan 28th wasn’t five days long. In fact it started on the 28th and went to the 29th. That’s a 2 day work week, not a 5 day work week. The reason the week was so short was because the Democrats had their annual party retreat starting on Wednesday.

A party retreat, or even short work week, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Members of Congress are human, inspite of the fact that some would have you think otherwise, and require breaks from their work just like the rest of us. The problem with this particular break though was that in hurrying out the door and off to their retreat, House Democrats failed to act responsibly on a very important issue that impacts the security of all of us.

Since assuming the majority in 2007, House Democrats have played kick-the-can with the Protect America Act. This legislation remedies a flawed FISA court ruling placing greater restrictions on the actions of U.S. intelligence agencies when those agencies seek to gather information from international phone calls that pass through the United States. Contrary to the popular interpretation, U.S. intelligence is not eavesdropping on phone calls between American citizens. The Protect America Act simply authorizes and codifies legal protections for intelligence agencies and private sector telecommunication companies that work or assist in the work of gathering intelligence from international suspects. The actions of the intelligence agencies do not violate any part of the Constitution.

Of course the facts can’t get in the way of politics and Democrats and their liberal friends such as MoveOn.org have publicly turned this issue into a campaign against the Bush administration’s waging of the War on Terror (better named the Islamic Terrorists’ War on Freedom). Privately, however, Democrats have faced the dilemma of governing as opposed to the campaigning that earns them big bucks from George Soros types.

With U.S. intelligence agencies facing a very severe limitation on their power to gather critical pieces of information, the President called on Congress in the summer of 2007 to pass legislation remedying the problem. In August the Democrat controlled House and Senate passed the Protect America Act. They set the law to expire in 6 months.

Six months later Congress, instead of passing a permanent solution solving this problem and allowing our intelligence forces to plan ahead and continue to protect us, has passed a 15 day extension. A fifteen day solution to a national security problem just so House Democrats can head out on their merry little retreat and deal with the problems later is conduct unbecoming for the majority party of the legislative body that deems itself “the people’s House.”

While this may be the kind of tactic that one should expect of some of the older Democratic lawmakers, it certainly isn’t what freshmen Democrats such as Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) promised voters when they ran for election in 2006. In both cases, the then candidates ran on a platform of changing the culture of Washington. Specifically, Joe Donnelly stated that “As your congressman, I am determined to make sure that our men and women serving both here and abroad have the tools, training, and leadership they need to protect us here at home and to pursue and defeat our adversaries abroad.”

Rep. Donnelly, those who protect America need more than a 15 day extension on a tool that is utterly critical for them to do their job and keep America safe. They deserve better, your constituents deserve better, America deserves better.

From the Indy Star:

Rep. Baron Hill, D-Seymour: “We have seen little, if any, political progress in Iraq. And, it begs one to ask the question the president averted, as to when the American occupation of Iraq will end. The American people deserve a clear-cut answer to this question.”

Never has an elected official representing Indiana been so divorced from reality.

No political progress?

On January 12, the Iraqis passed an amendment to their de-Baathification law aimed at reconciling with Sunnis. Democrats, like Mr. Hill, frequently cited this as one of the most necessary things necessary for political progress in Iraq.

Given such a monumental achievement, unnoticed in America as it might be, it is impossible to say that there has been “little, if any, political progress in Iraq.”

If this is not political progress, when it has already been defined as an objective by Democrats like Baron, then what is?

Maybe the report two weeks ago (while Baron was off on vacation) by the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations can be considered progress:

Iraq faces a period of economic growth and political progress, according to assessments by the International Monetary Fund and the UN.

The IMF sees 7% growth in 2008 and a similar rise next year, and says oil revenues from buoyant exports should be up by 200,000 barrels a day.

The UN envoy to Iraq welcomed dialogue between the Sunni and Shia communities and praised the government’s work.

I suspect that if we had 7% growth here in the United States, it would be considered progress.

Unless, of course, it was under a Republican president; then we would certainly be living in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Back in December, it was noted that violence in Iraq is at its lowest level since the first year of the war (when, I might add, Baron was still in office and was very much still in support of what was then a quite popular war).

Iraqi forces have also formally taken control of their own security for half of their country.

Violence in Iraq is at its lowest levels since the first year of the American invasion, finally opening a window for reconciliation among rival sects, the second-ranking U.S. general said Sunday as Iraqi forces formally took control of security across half the country.

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the man responsible for the ground campaign in Iraq, said that the first six months of 2007 were probably the most violent period since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The past six months, however, had seen some of the lowest levels of violence since the conflict began, Odierno said, attributing the change to an increase in both American troops and better-trained Iraqi forces.

I am unsurprised that Baron is utterly unaware of this progress, and of the general consensus that has evolved–even in the partisan halls of Washington–about the success of General Petraeus and the surge he designed.

Baron Hill’s behavior with regard to Iraq has been a shameful disgrace, from his politically-contrived vote for the war to his repudiation of that vote as soon as the war became unpopular.

From his wavering and often contradictory votes for or against war funding, to his assertion to lefty supporters that he would never vote for such funding ever again, he has never stood firm on anything.

Let’s not forget his claim in the campaign that anyone wearing the American uniform “deserves all the support they can get” in his campaign ads last year, compared to his blatant insult of the members of the Hoosier National Guard bound for Iraq (to fight in a war he voted to start) when he decided to go on a taxpayer-funded vacation in the Pacific (including Vietnam) instead of bidding them farewell in Indianapolis with many other Indiana politicians of note, Republican and Democrat.

Ignorance on Iraq, for Baron, is merely par for the course.

He has never done right by the young men and women he voted to send to war, and he has never even paid much attention to what is going on in the war itself when progress is made.

Baron Hill just mindlessly panders to the anti-war crowd, and his treatment of them is itself no more sincere than his original assertions of support for the war or his claims in the last election that American soldiers “deserve all the support they can get.”
(more…)

Back in December I missed an opportunity to bring to your attention a very critical vote that Indiana’s three Blue Dog Democrats cast.  The vote was on the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act, a measure with funds and regulates how our intelligence agencies carry out their duties.

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D), Rep. Baron Hill (D) and Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) all joined the Democratic Leadership in voting for the Act.  What makes their vote a bad vote?  The bill didn’t just fund the intelligence agencies, it also imposed new regulations that would make it harder for the brave men and women who work hard to keep America safe to do their job.  The bill-HR 2082-specifically denies agencies the power to use water boarding and other hard interrogation techniques that have earned the title of “torture” from our well meaning liberal friends.

I am not in favor of torture and neither are the individuals who voted against this bill.  What conservatives and Republicans are in favor of is protecting the American people.  If we have scare some Islamofascist thug into thinking he is drowning in order to gain important information from him, then we need to do that.  When the lives of innocent potential victims are on the line, it is not torture to compel an individual to reveal as much as they know about a terrorist plot.

Torture is when you disfigure, maim, or otherwise inflict permanent physical or psychological damage on the victim for no other reason than to punish the person.  It is not torture to inflict physical discomfort or psychological terror in order to obtain information that can and will save lives.

On Joe Donnelly’s campaign website the sitting congressman declares:

“We face threats everyday from our enemies who are committed to causing harm to Americans both at home and to our allies and interests overseas. As your congressman, I am determined to make sure that our men and women serving both here and abroad have the tools, training, and leadership they need to protect us here at home and to pursue and defeat our adversaries abroad. “

In voting to deny intelligence agencies the tools they need, Joe Donnelly effectively left the American people a little more vulnerable to another terrorist attack.

A New York newspaper and an Arizona senator would normally not be newsworthy for an Indiana blog, but it turns out that said senator is running for president and said newspaper has endorsed aforementioned candidate.  The presidential campaign directly impacts Indiana and I know that at least one blogger who reads this blog is a big McCain supporter so just to fire him up I’m doing this post (okay, he hyperlinked to a news item I ran yesterday so maybe this isn’t the best way to thank him). 

Anyway, the New York Times, the ultra-liberal paper of record, has announced that John McCain wins their endorsement for the Republican Party’s nomination.  The endorsement came in an editorial that appeared in Friday’s edition of the paper and the McCain team lost little time in republishing the article on their own website.

In the editorial the paper lays out its reasons for choosing John McCain.  Interestingly, the reasons they have for supporting McCain are the exact same reasons that conservatives and Republicans who don’t like McCain base their opposition to him on.

Here is an excerpt:

In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.