ROFASix

Band-aids, not Bullets in Afghanistan

2010-01-06T20:10:00.000Z

Posted by rofasix

LT Amy Zaycek, the severe trauma platoon nurse with the Female Corpsman Team (FCT) holds an Afghan child during a recent patrol in the area of Now Zad, Helmand Province, Afghanistan. The FCT recently returned to Now Zad, Jan. 3, to assist members of the Female Engagement Team, Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, with their effort to further the process of treating, educating and engaging the women of Now Zad. LT Zaycek is a native of Wall, N.J. (Story about this Operation here.)

(Photo by Cpl. Zachary Nola)

Afghan Kids

2010-01-06T19:51:00.001Z

posted by rofasix

US Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Keith Baxter interacts with Afghan children during a dismounted patrol in Kvoshab Village near Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan, Jan. 2, 2010.

(DoD photo by Tech. Sgt. Efren Lopez, U.S. Air Force/Released)

Tax Dollars on Display in Afghanistan

2010-01-06T19:24:00.001Z

While this video, produced by Marine Staff Sgt. Clinton Firstbrook is officially about:

Afghanistan army religious and cultural advisors visiting Camp Hero to discuss literacy training for Afghan soldiers. Scenes include Afghan soldiers training and Afgah soldiers attending literacy classes.

It is also about where US tax dollars have gone in Afghanistan. Check out the clothing, equipment, weapons, and facilities. You paid for it.

All of this is a real deal if it adds to our national security. But does it? I'm still unsure how the enemy shifted from al-Qaeda to the Taliban in Afghanistan. If the Taliban again impose their horrific theocracy on their country, does that really impact American's national security? I wonder.

Once it did, but now that al-Qaeda has metastasized out of Afghanistan, it may no longer matter.

Health Mafia Kills 45,000 Americans yearly?

2010-01-06T18:09:00.002Z

The video below represents a recent bout of verbal sparring between uber-progressive Keith Olbermann and libertarian talk show host Neil Boortz. Watch it and you can see why Olbermann is so popular within the liberal wing. His indignation and anger makes you want to just run out and kick some conservative's ass!

There is only one problem with Olbermann's position as it is with most of the progressive liberals. It is based upon fallacious data. If you listened to any of the health care "reform" discussion, you heard that magic 45,000 annual deaths number bantered about. Along with the number of uninsured, both numbers are proof that in Washington DC that if you repeat any lie often enough, it becomes "fact."

That 45,000 number came from a study published in the American Journal of Public Health in September of last year. It used sloppy statistics and was not unbiased. For instance, the authors, Himmelstein and Woolhander, are long time advocates of single-payer, government-run health care. They co-founded, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a physician group which touts itself as ‘the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program. The entire study was written with a progressive spin to it.

Their "study" was based on a health survey using data from 1988-1994. A sample of 9,000 people were asked if they were insured and then asked to rate their health. The CDC tracked the deaths of the people in this group through the year 2000. The authors then "played in the numbers" and attributed deaths from the group (at that static point in time) to the lack of health insurance. It was a dramatic shift from the 2002 study published by the Institute of Medicine who estimated the number was 18,000.

This leads to one inescapable conclusion. Keith Olbermann simply doesn't care if the number is accurate, so long as it supports his ire and "caring" for the little guy. He, like many progressive socialists, believe you need this from the government, simply because you are not as smart, or educated, or as wealthy as he is. It is the ultimate form of liberal hubris that tends to let feelings trump logic every time.

Olbermann also fails to grasp that guys like Boortz are simply saying that when you get government in charge of our health care system a lot more than 45,000 are going to die every year. It's inevitable with the rationing that must follow when the "government option" destroys the health care private sector.

That is why I have long held that one does not have to have tin foil on their head to suspect that this whole "reform" push is simply a brilliant and subtle way to reduce the number of baby boomers who are starting to demand their share of that "entitlement" budget. Silly old people! They actually believed that when they paid into Social Security for all those decades and more recently Medicare, that the government would fulfill its promises of those programs. Welcome to "real change" and baby you can really believe in it!!

(So how's that hope n' change working out for ya buddy?)

Taxpayer Funded BCS Bowl

2010-01-06T17:59:00.000Z

Did you know that you are paying for the "big game?" I had not thought about it before. But, it's true. Whether you like football or not, it doesn't matter. Your tax dollars are paying for these games. Incredible and unbelievable you say?

Hardly!

Chart Wars

2010-01-06T06:56:00.000Z

While this if officially called "The Political Power of Data Visualization," when you cut to the bottom line it is all about updating how political propaganda can get the "message" out using the tools we now have readily available. Joseph Goebbels would be so envious!

Democrats Send

2010-01-06T06:28:00.004Z

More at Patriot Post Humor

Protests in Iran

2010-01-06T06:10:00.001Z

Iranians decry the treatment of those protesting against the current Iranian government. What they keep forgetting is that this repression has noting to do with religion or justice or equality, just power. In many ways, the deposed Shah of Iran ends up with the last laugh, doesn't he?

Recent reports indicate Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar has said members of the opposition could face execution if demonstrations continue. Najjar even added that anyone who takes part in riots will be considered waging war on God and an opponent of national security.

It must be nice for Najjar that he has a direct line to God to know this. But one should not be surprised. Despots always think they have a special channel to God. It helps keeping the disenfranchised, well, disenfranchised, but by God!

Obama blames Gitmo for Terrorism

2010-01-06T06:02:00.002Z

If anything this is one more bit of clear and compelling evidence how little this former community organizer understands what motivates the people who want to kill him and the rest of folks not like themselves.

It is likely why it took President Obama so long to describe the underwear bomber as an actual terrorist acting on behalf of al-Qaeda.

Michael Yon - Terrorist Threat?

2010-01-06T05:51:00.000Z

When the TSA asked Michael Yon how much money he made and who he worked for as he transited the Seattle airport, who knew he would end up in handcuffs? Perhaps this is payback for a negative article he wrote last year that made TSA look pretty stupid?

Now, thanks to TSA, they have made themselves look even more moronic.

Mark Twain: On Duels

2010-01-05T21:56:00.000Z

I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him. - Mark Twain

How Jennings ended up in Dept of Education

2010-01-05T20:59:00.001Z

Reading "NAMBLA-gate: The Strange Case of Kevin Jennings, Part One" and later "Accuracy in Media smears Kevin Jennings again", I couldn't help but wonder what sort of twisted logic would get a guy like Kevin Jennings assigned to the Department of Education in the first place.

The progressive liberals insist that this appointment is consistent with the promotion of equality and equal opportunity for all. Yet, it is hard not to think of Harry Hay and Kevin Jennings as cut from the same cloth as described in the video below which provides a non-hysterical look at both Kevin Jennings and his reported "inspiration."

The question comes down to this. Is this the fellow you want making policy for children's schools?

So how did this go down? I imagine it must have gone like this:

President Obama: "Madam Secretary, give me an overview of the nine appointments you want to make in your department. Do they achieve diversity in our cabinet positions? You know I want more gay, handicapped veteran Pacific islanders appointed!"

Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan: "We have been having a tough time finding anyone who meets all those criteria. How about someone who says their biggest inspiration was a supporter of North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a prominent member of the Communist Party USA, and a "Radical Faerie"?

President: "That sounds intriguing, Did his 'inspiration' also believe in the power of the occult?"

Secretary Duncan: "Oh yes sir! He is also the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a local volunteer group in the Boston area bringing together lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual (LGBT) and straight teachers, parents, students, and community members.

President: "Let me guess, He wanted to end anti-LGBT bias in the state's K-12 schools, right? What a brilliant technique! But, he is only one gay person, I want more diversity damn it!"

Secretary Duncan: "He has been effective in ending bullying of gay students in school Mr. President. In 1992, he was appointed by Mass Gov. William Weld (Mass.) to co-chair the Education Committee of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. He was the principal author of its report, "Making Schools Safer for Gay and Lesbian Youth: Breaking the Silence in Schools and in Families."

President: "OK, so he has been a really busy and is a long time super-gay fella."

Secretary Duncan: "Plus! He and his partner, Jeff, are the proud "parents" of a golden retriever, Amber, and a Bernese mountain dog, Ben, and also have a "granddog" in Ben's son, Jackson, born in March 2009" which should get us some traction with the pet lover community."

President: "Whoa! Not so fast ... is this Jackson a dog or a boy?"

Secretary Duncan: "Yes, Mr. President, he is, according to his bio!"

President: "Which? Are you suggesting we are seeking some diversity with the beastiality or man-boy love crowd since you can't find me handicapped veteran Pacific Islanders?"

Secretary Duncan: "Don't you see Mr. President, Jennings is a brilliant choice, we cover all sorts of special interests with this appointment."

President: "Are you sure you want to put him into the Department of Education - I was thinking he might be better working for Secretary Gates over in Defense"

Secretary Duncan: "It's a good idea, Mr. President but I think we are making a stronger statement putting him in Education. It will show that we trust gay men who like kids with our children."

President: "We do? He won't be impacting my kids in their private schools anyhow."

Secretary Duncan: "And one other thing Mr. President, just ignore all those inflammatory YouTube videos about Jennings ... they are all right wing homophobic lies!"

President: "Thanks Madame Secretary, I try and ignore anything that does not fit with my worldview. I like the sound of Jennings ... even if he isn't a handicapped, veteran, gay man from the Pacific Islands."

Washington Post "outs" electricity thief

2010-01-05T17:28:00.004Z

Reading "Recharging and other concerns keep electric cars far from mainstream" while researching electric cars, I was shocked to see that the author, Peter Whoriskey, starts his Washington Post article with description of a crime and names the perpetrator, Paul Heitman.

If I were Mr. Heitman I would stop by that station and lay $50 bucks on the owner of that service station fast. Otherwise, he might have some very un-nice Russian speaking people looking for him in Jersey. Whoriskey starts his news article like this:

It was dark and rainy, and the battery on his nifty Mini E electric car was almost gone.

Paul Heitmann rolled quietly through the suburban New Jersey gloom, peering through the rain on the windshield, not sure what he was looking for, anxiety turning into panic. He needed juice. He spotted a Lukoil gas station, which was closed, and beside the point, anyway. But beyond the pumps, there was a Coke machine, and it was lit up. "I thought 'Finally!' because I knew if there was light, there would be electricity," he said. "I managed to find the outlet behind the Coke machine and plugged in."

Astounding was that there were over a hundred comments. Only one said:

So let me get this straight: the freaks who buy these electric cars going around STEALING ELECTRICITY from gas stations: "I managed to find the outlet behind the Coke machine and plugged in."

Amen brother, amen ... but they are soooo proud of themselves for doing it!

Censorship in Afghanistan?

2010-01-05T17:00:00.000Z

Michael Yon's latest "Canadian Cover Up?" tells of what appears to be a Canadian attempt to spin facts of what is happening to their military in Afghanistan. Well worth a read, as always.

While there, you might check out Yon's "Bullshit Bob" as well. It's Yon's experience with the Brits trying to control and spin ground truth.

Two of the Most Expensive Car Crashes Ever!

2010-01-05T15:39:00.003Z

This Ferrari 250 GTO became the most valuable car in the world in 2008 when an anonymous English buyer bought the automobile at an auction for a record $28.5 Million. During a track event showcasing historic cars, the owner rammed into the back of another car when the traffic slowed down in front of him.

Not to be outdone, this Cadillac had an altercation with a fire hydrant early last Thanksgiving morning. It was driven by someone who wishes he could have remained anonymous like the Ferrari owner.

While the automobile is clearly not valued like the Ferrari, the final cost of this crash is still being computed. It is expected to far exceed the previous record of $28.5 million. Stay tuned, the final amount will be determined by a cute little blond Swedish woman named Elin Nordegren!

7 Lies in under 106 seconds

2010-01-05T15:18:00.000Z

Whatever happened to the guy in the video?

So Comrade, how did that "hope n' change" guy work out again?

Agent Orange-Heart Disease Link Looms

2010-01-05T05:59:00.001Z

The cost of war -- on veterans’ health and taxpayer wallets -- will loom a little larger in the new year when the Department of Veterans Affairs issues a final rule to claim adjudicators to presume three more diseases of Vietnam veterans, including heart disease, were caused by exposure to Agent Orange.

The rule, expected to be published soon, will make almost any veteran who set foot in Vietnam, and is diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, B cell leukemia or ischemic heart disease (known also as coronary artery disease), eligible for disability compensation and VA medical care. The exception would be if credible evidence surfaces of a non-service cause for the ailment.

Katie Roberts, VA press secretary, said no estimates will be available on numbers of veterans impacted or the potential cost to VA until after the rule change takes effect sometime in 2010. But the National Association for Uniformed Services was told by a VA official that up to 185,000 veterans could become eligible for benefits and the projected cost to VA might reach $50 billion, said Win Reither, a retired colonel on NAUS’ executive board.

NAUS also advised members that VA, to avoid aggravating its claims backlog, intends to "accept letters from family physicians supporting claims for Agent Orange-related conditions." It said thousands of widows whose husbands died of Agent Orange disabilities also will be eligible for retroactive benefits and VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.

"This is huge," said Ronald Abrams, co-director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program. NVLSP has represented veterans in Agent Orange lawsuits for the last 25 years. The non-profit law group publishes the "Veterans Benefits Manual," a 1900-page guide for veterans’ advocates to navigate the maze for VA claims, appeals and key court decisions.

Abrams said he can’t guess at how many more thousands of veterans previously denied disability claims, or how many thousands more who haven’t filed claims yet, will be eligible for benefits. But numbers, particularly of those with heart disease, will be very large, he suggested.

All of the veterans "who have been trying to link their heart condition to a service-connected condition won’t have to do it now if they’re Vietnam vets," Abrams said. For VA, it will mean "a significant amount of money -- and many, many, many people helped."

The excitement over expansion of benefits for Vietnam veterans, and worry by some within the Obama administration over cost, flows from an announcement last October by VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki. He said three categories would be added to the list of diseases the VA presumes were caused by Agent Orange. Veterans with the presumptive Agent Orange ailments can get disability compensation if they can show they made even a brief visit to Vietnam from 1962 to 1975. With a presumptive illness, claim applicants don’t have to prove, as other claimants do, a direct association between their medical condition and military service.

Shinseki said he based his decision on work of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies. VA contracts with IOM to gather veterans’ health data and investigate links between diseases and toxic herbicide used in Vietnam to destroy vegetation and expose enemy positions.

In a speech last July, Shinseki, former Army chief of staff and a wounded veteran of Vietnam, expressed frustration that "40 years after Agent Orange was last used in Vietnam, this secretary is still adjudicating claims for presumption of service-connected disabilities tied to its toxic effects." VA and the Defense Department should had conducted conclusive studies earlier on presumptive disabilities from Agent Orange, he suggested.

"The scientific method and the failure to advocate for the veteran got in the way of our processes," Shinseki bluntly concluded.

In last October’s announcement he said VA "must do better reviews of illnesses that may be connected to service, and we will. Veterans who endure health problems deserve timely decisions based on solid evidence."

When a disease is added to VA’s list of ailments tied to Agent Orange, veterans with the disease can become eligible for retroactive disability payments, back to the date original claims were rejected, if after 1985.

Joe Violante, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, praised Shinseki’s decision. But he said VA faces a "logistical nightmare" in trying to find veterans turned down on earlier on claims. A VA official told Violante, he said, that cost of the search could be part of that nightmare.

Chairman of government affairs for Vietnam Veterans of America until last October was John Miterko. He said he wasn’t surprised that Shinseki added ailments to the Agent Orange presumptive list including heart disease.

"If you look at the Vietnam veteran population, the diseases we’ve contracted and the mortality rate, the only group dying faster rate are the World War II veterans," Miterko said. "We’re picking up diseases by our ‘60s that we shouldn’t be getting until our late ‘70s, early ‘80s. So his adding other diseases, heart disease in particular, isn’t a surprise."

Both Shinseki and his predecessor, James Peake, former Army surgeon general, had long military careers and served in Vietnam. "That’s a hell of a bonus for us," Miterko said. Both of them have shown "much more empathy, much more understanding. They would have seen many of their own peer group suffering from the effects of exposure to Agent Orange."

Miterko doesn’t believe anyone can estimate how many veterans will benefit from the new presumptive diseases. VA will continue to process claims individually, he said, and likely won’t be accepting Agent Orange as the cause of heart disease for someone "who has smoked for 40 years and is morbidly obese. Common sense is going to have to prevail as well."

(Credit to original author)

Quote for Cogitation

2010-01-05T05:37:00.000Z

Many politicians lay it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom.

The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. -- Lord Macaulay

STRATFOR - Nigerian Underpants Bomber

2010-01-05T05:15:00.000Z

The Christmas Day Airliner Attack and the Intelligence Process
By George Friedman

As is well known, a Nigerian national named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to destroy a passenger aircraft traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Dec. 25, 2009. Metal detectors cannot pinpoint the chemical in the device he sought to detonate, PETN. The PETN was strapped to his groin. Since a detonator could have been detected, the attacker chose — or had chosen for him — a syringe filled with acid for use as an improvised alternative means to initiate the detonation. In the event, the device failed to detonate, but it did cause a fire in a highly sensitive area of the attacker’s body. An alert passenger put out the fire. The plane landed safely. It later emerged that the attacker’s father, a prominent banker in Nigeria, had gone to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria to warn embassy officials of his concerns that his son might be involved with jihadists.

The incident drove home a number of points. First, while al Qaeda prime — the organization that had planned and executed 9/11 — might be in shambles, other groups in other countries using the al Qaeda brand name and following al Qaeda prime’s ideology remain operational and capable of mounting attacks. Second, like other recent attacks, this attack was relatively feeble: It involved a single aircraft, and the explosive device was not well-conceived. Third, it remained and still remains possible for a terrorist to bring explosives on board an aircraft. Fourth, intelligence available in Nigeria, London and elsewhere had not moved through the system with sufficient speed to block the terrorist from boarding the flight.

An Enduring Threat

From this three things emerge. First, although the capabilities of jihadist terrorists have declined, their organizations remain functional, and there is no guarantee that these organizations won’t increase in sophistication and effectiveness. Second, the militants remain focused on the global air transport system. Third, the defensive mechanisms devised since 2001 remain ineffective to some degree.

The purpose of terrorism in its purest form is to create a sense of insecurity among a public. It succeeds when fear moves a system to the point where it can no longer function. This magnifies the strength of the terrorist by causing the public to see the failure of the system as the result of the power of the terrorist. Terror networks are necessarily sparse. The greater the number of persons involved, the more likely a security breach becomes. Thus, there are necessarily few people in a terror network. An ideal terror network is global, able to strike anywhere and in multiple places at once. The extent of the terror network is unknown, partly because of its security systems and partly because it is so sparse that finding a terrorist is like finding a needle in a haystack. It is the fact that the size and intentions of the terror network are unknown that generates the sense of terror and empowers the terrorist.

The global aspect is also important. That attacks can originate in many places and that attackers can belong to many ethnic groups increases the desired sense of insecurity. All Muslims are not members of al Qaeda, but all members of al Qaeda are Muslims, and any Muslim might be a member of al Qaeda. This logic is beneficial to radical Islamists, who want to increase the sense of confrontation between Islam and the rest of the world. This not only increases the sense of insecurity and vulnerability in the rest of the world, it also increases hostility toward Muslims, strengthening al Qaeda’s argument to Muslims that they are in an unavoidable state of war with the rest of the world. Equally important is the transmission of the idea that if al Qaeda is destroyed in one place, it will spring up elsewhere.

This terror attack made another point, intended or not. U.S. President Barack Obama recently decided to increase forces in Afghanistan. A large part of his reasoning was that Afghanistan was the origin of 9/11, and the Taliban hosted al Qaeda. Therefore, he reasoned the United States should focus its military operations in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, since that was the origin of al Qaeda. But the Christmas Day terror attempt originated in Yemen, a place where the United States has been fighting a covert war with limited military resources. It therefore raises the question of why Obama is focusing on Afghanistan when the threat from al Qaeda spinoffs can originate anywhere.

From the terrorist perspective, the Yemen attack was a low-cost, low-risk operation. If it succeeded in bringing down a U.S. airliner over Detroit, the psychological impact would be massive. If it failed to do so, it would certainly increase a sense of anxiety, cause the U.S. and other governments to institute new and expensive security measures, and potentially force the United States into expensive deployments of forces insufficient to dominate a given country but sufficient to generate an insurgency. If just some of these things happened, the attack would have been well worth the effort.

The Strategic Challenge

The West’s problem can be identified this way: There is no strategic solution to low-level terrorism, i.e., terrorism carried out by a sparse, global network at unpredictable times and places. Strategy involves identifying and destroying the center of gravity of an enemy force. By nature, jihadist terrorism fails to present a single center of gravity, or a strong point or enabler that if destroyed would destroy the organization. There is no organization properly understood, and the destruction of one organization does not preclude the generation of another organization.

There are two possible solutions. The first is to accept that Islamist terrorism cannot be defeated permanently but can be kept below a certain threshold. As it operates now, it can inflict occasional painful blows on the United States and other countries — including Muslim countries — but it cannot threaten the survival of the nation (though it might force regime change in some Muslim countries).

In this strategy, there are two goals. The first is preventing the creation of a jihadist regime in any part of the Muslim world. As we saw when the Taliban provided al Qaeda with sanctuary, access to a state apparatus increases the level of threat to the United States and other countries; displacing the Taliban government reduced the level of threat. The second goal is preventing terrorists from accessing weapons of mass destruction that, while they might not threaten the survival of a country, would certainly raise the pain level to an unacceptable point. In other words, the United States and other countries should focus on reducing the level of terrorist capabilities, not on trying to eliminate the terrorist threat as a whole.

To a great extent, this is the American strategy. The United States has created a system for screening airline passengers. No one expects it to block a serious attempt to commit terrorism on an airliner, nor does this effort have any effect on other forms of terrorism. Instead, it is there to reassure the public that something is being done, to catch some careless attackers and to deter others. But in general, it is a system whose inconvenience is meant to reassure.

The Challenge of Identifying Potential Terrorists

To the extent to which there is a center of gravity to the problem, it is in identifying potential terrorists. In both the Fort Hood attack and the Detroit incident, information was in the system that could have allowed authorities to identify and stop the attackers, but in both cases, this information didn’t flow to the places where action could have been taken. There is thus a chasm between the acquisition of information and the person who has the authority to do something about it. The system “knew” about both attackers, but systems don’t actually think or know anything. The person with authority to stop a Nigerian from boarding the plane or who could relieve the Fort Hood killer from duty lacked one or more of the following: intelligence, real authority and motivation.

The information gathered in Nigeria had to be widely distributed to be useful. It was unknown where Abdulmutallab was going to go or what he was going to do. The number of people who needed to know about him was enormous, from British security to Amsterdam ticket agents checking passports. Without distributing the intelligence widely, it became useless. A net can’t have holes that are too big, and the failure to distribute intelligence to all points creates holes.

Of course, the number of pieces of intelligence that come into U.S. intelligence collection is enormous. How does the person interviewing the father know whether the father has other reasons to put his son on a list? Novels have been written about father-son relations. The collector must decide whether the report is both reliable and significant, and the vast majority of information coming into the system is neither. The intelligence community has been searching for a deus ex machina in the form of computers able not only to distribute intelligence to the necessary places but also to distinguish reliable from unreliable, significant from insignificant.

Forgetting the interagency rivalries and the tendency to give contracts to corporate behemoths with last-generation technology, no matter how widely and efficiently intelligence is distributed, at each step in the process someone must be given real authority to make decisions. When Janet Napolitano or George Tenet say that the system worked after an incident, they mean not that the outcome was satisfactory, but that the process operated as the process was intended to operate. Of course, being faithful to a process is not the same as being successful, but the U.S. intelligence community’s obsession with process frequently elevates process above success. Certainly, process is needed to operate a vast system, but process also is being used to deny people authority to do what is necessary outside the process, or, just as bad, it allows people to evade responsibility by adhering to the process.

Not only does the process relieve individuals in the system from real authority; it also strips them of motivation. In a system driven by process, the individual motivated to abort the process and improvise is weeded out early. There is no room for “cowboys,” the intelligence community term for people who hope to be successful at the mission rather than faithful to the process. Obviously, we are overstating matters somewhat, but not by as much as one might think. Within the U.S. intelligence and security process, one daily sees good people struggling to do their jobs in the face of processes that can’t possibly anticipate all circumstances.

The distribution of intelligence to the people who need to see it is, of course, indispensable, along with whatever other decision supports can be contrived. But, in the end, unless individuals are expected and motivated to make good decisions, the process is merely the preface to failure. No system can operate without process. At the same time, no process can replace authority, motivation and, ultimately, common sense.

The fear of violating procedures cripples Western efforts to shut down low-level terrorism. But the procedures are themselves flawed. A process that says that in a war against radical Islamists, an elderly visitor from Iceland is as big of a potential threat as a twentysomething from Yemen might satisfy some ideological imperative, but it violates the principle of common sense and blocks the authority and the motivation to act decisively.

It is significant that this is one of the things the Obama administration has changed in response to the attempted bombing.

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced Jan. 4 that anyone traveling from or through nations regarded as state sponsors of terrorism as well as “other countries of interest” will be required to go through enhanced screening. The TSA said those techniques would include full-body pat downs, carry-on luggage searches, full-body scanning and explosive detection technology. The U.S. State Department lists Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism. The other countries whose passengers will face enhanced screening include Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen. A rational system of profiling thus appears to be developing.

In all likelihood, no system can eliminate events such as what happened on Christmas, and in all likelihood, the republic would survive an intermittent pattern of such events — even successful ones. Focusing on the strategic level makes sense. But given the level of effort and cost involved in terrorist protection throughout the world, successful systems for distributing intelligence and helping identify potentially significant threats are long overdue. The U.S. government has been tackling this since 2001, and it still isn’t working.

But, in the end, creating a process that precludes initiative by penalizing those who do not follow procedures under all circumstances and intimidating those responsible for making quick decisions from risking a mistake is bound to fail.

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"

Rules for Legislators

2010-01-05T04:56:00.003Z

My suggested guidelines for federal legislators on the application of common sense when they do their "thing" in Congress.

1. Ask yourself whether the law is really needed? For instance, if the states have laws that address the issue, why do we need a Federal one?

If we are legislating morality, personal responsibility, culture and mores, look hard at whether the law is really necessary.

Does government have a place in our bank accounts, personal communications, personal conduct, computer use? If yes, then insure the requirement is compelling and a matter of national security. Otherwise, fight it tooth n' nail.

2. Ask yourself whether you are willing to fund legislation you pass and if not, then whether the legislation is really needed. If you are not willing to pay for it with other people's money, then don't make me as an individual, or my state government pay for it.

3. Ask yourself what the systemic result of the new law would be? (Prevent repeats of the nutty world of mandatory sentencing, three strikes, legal double jeopardy and mirror image Federal Law.)

4. Act now to get back the taxing power that only the legislative branch has, but has been handed over to executive branch activities such as the FCC, who continue to find new and innovative "non-tax" ways to get a piece of our income.

5. Set the standard for your peers in Congress by eschewing “political expediency" and taking actions based upon principle, integrity, and character. If this becomes the foundation of your decisions you will really serve your constituents back home.

Otherwise the Republic is at the mercy of any ambitious man who happens along as recently demonstrated by the political theater of the last couple of years.

Every day more power accrues to Washington and the only thing holding back total tyranny so far has been the benevolence of the rulers we selected. With the election of President Obama, all indications are that the "benevolence" is over.

6. Ask yourself if the proposed law is within or exceeds the constitutionally defined limits of federal power and pertains to the appropriate role of a central government.

7. Initiate action now to throw out outdated and archaic laws by enacting a policy of "zero based" legislation. Let’s start with the Federal Tax Code. Property taxes already make us serfs in our own homes. Income taxes already require more of our produce than did feudal levies.

What's the difference?

2010-01-05T04:42:00.000Z

Tony Soprano knocks on your door and tells you that you must either buy an insurance policy from him or pay him $750 a year per person in your family? You refuse, so he breaks your kneecaps.

H .R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires you buy an "approved" health care policy or pay a fine of $750 a year per person.You refuse, so they fine you or put you in jail.

So what's the difference between dealing with the Mafia and the Government when it comes to health care "reform" again?

Dear Mr. Politician (Part IV)

2010-01-05T03:04:00.000Z

Your charge upon entering office is to be morally and ethically strong enough to operate from the principles you claimed you held when we elected you to office. We only demanded that you do what is right for our country. That means you do not pass laws that "sound good" to the good folks in your state and prey on those in other states.

More Federal Laws don't solve problems. You have created an environment of property confiscation, unreasonable search and seizure, redefined the legal concept of conspiracy, and generated a fear based informant system that makes many citizens unsure which is worse, the criminals or the government enforcing these laws.

The guarantees of the Bill of Rights are too precious to be surrendered for any failed War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Ignorance, War on Tobacco, War on Organized Crime, or War on Whatever, those in Washington declare is the "moral equivalence of War target" at the moment.

When we see instances of horrible crimes against persons we now see you in Congress advocating new tougher federal laws that target the certain type killings as a hate crime. I have heard your peers comment that we need more laws to protect non-whites, and non-heterosexuals against being murdered. How does a hate crime law do that more that a law against killing another?

It really comes down to politicians wishing to curry favor with certain special interests. When you do that, you discriminate against the rest of us. But worst of all, you create more laws that can be used against individual liberty.

When you have us "little people", the common man, powerless and less educated asking these questions, it is time for you Mr. Politician to check your assumptions that you and your peers use. It is clear you no longer speak for those you are supposed to represent. It is time for you to go home to the hollow from whence you came.

This November we are coming for you. You bill Mr. Scumbag Politician is past due.

Dear Mr. Politician (Part III)

2010-01-05T03:03:00.000Z

Looking around my world today I see a creeping federalization of many areas that have always been the purview of the states. Today, there are more than 3,000 federal crimes on the books. No crime is beyond the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement authorities. Federal crimes now range from serious but purely local offenses such as carjacking and church burning to trivial matters such as disrupting a rodeo or damaging a livestock facility. Oh yeah, if I climb the fence around my municipal water tank down the street, it's now a federal felony. Yegads ... what are you thinking?

In 1994, one crime bill alone created two dozen new federal offenses. I see that you continue to support more Federal Laws whenever it is popular or expedient to do so. Since 9/11 that trend has accelerated. Remember, individual liberty, once surrendered will never again be regained.

If the law seems to target child pornography, drugs, or other pariah of the moment, I can count on seeing few in Congress willing to take a hard analytical look at the legislation because it deals with one of the sacrosanct threats you are "waging ~~war~~ legislation" upon.

I once wrote you about a proposed Federal Law that claimed to protect children from pornography on the Internet. I pointed out it was unnecessary and outside the appropriate realm for Federal Legislation.

Your response to me suggested that you were against pornography period and would support any law that targeted it. You suggested that anyone who took my position must be one who advocated child pornography. It was classic absurdity of logic and indicative of thought processes in Congress that every citizen should fear.

When it comes to pornography, terrorism, drugs, hate crimes, and whatever else you think is a problem, individual liberty must be respected. That is hardly supporting these despicable things.

I only hope Congress does not include in that law a provision that requires a lobotomy for children who see pornography on the Internet. Although that would certainly cut down on repeat viewers, that solution is as much an affront to liberty and justice as is the law you eventually passed.

As we are learning, we don't know what is in most of the laws you pass and you don't either. So can you be sure you didn't include a child lobotomy provision?

Dear Mr. Politician (Part II)

2010-01-05T03:02:00.001Z

The first time I saw your private parking spot at the DC airport I should have realized that you live in a world of special perks, PACs, and "ground-hog day" world of year round reelection efforts far different than any I know.

When you entered Congress, you left the world we hired you to represent. Seemingly, you think that your constituents gauge your "success" in terms of how many successful bills you sponsored that become law and how much pork you bring home to the state. Perhaps that once was a good measure, but no more.

The recent health care "reform" bill showed me the new American reality of government... one either stands openly for justice and for liberty, or openly for privilege and dishonor. You and your peers sold out what little ethics you had for special perks and pork handed out to buy your vote. You actually took that bribe, that elsewhere would have been viewed as at best unethical, and at worst illegal. What you did was little different from what Rep Jefferson was convicted of doing. He kept his money in the freezer, you get away with it because you send other people's money to your state. But, it is still dirty money, no matter how you look at it.

I have always defined success as representing the interests of your constituents and your country equally, while maintaining a sense of purpose, honor, integrity, and fairness to all you represent. Based upon your track record and that of most in Congress, I suggest we have no option but put "term limits" in place, if we really hope to see a government of the people. Reading the history of Congress, too few of you professional politicians have escaped with your soul. But, most have come out of it personally wealthy and connected.

I have seen you and your fellow congress persons vote on a bill, never having read it, based only your staffer's recommendation. The results are both humorous and horrifying, as well as a subtle sort of betrayal to your responsibility to those of us you represent.

It makes me wonder ... does one have to have no shame to serve in Congress?

Dear Mr. Politician (Part I)

2010-01-05T03:00:00.002Z

Thirty years ago I left my home in northern Alabama to serve in the US military. Neither the country nor my state was perfect then. There was a lot of turmoil then. Race relations were undergoing a fundamental change, and we were engaged in a distant war that no one understood. Alabama was changing as it had to do to grow and prosper in the decades that followed. It did change and the place I came home to is better than when I left. But that is fading now and you are part of the reason and the problem.

When the state started worrying about Bingo and whether someone can sell a sex toy in a store, I realized it must have solved all of it's major problems. Why else would it get wrapped around the axle on such trivial matters that relate to an individuals personal liberty?

During that time I was away, I did not pay much attention to what you and your predecessors were doing in Washington, I had plenty of things to keep me busy. I also had a youthful or perhaps naive trust, of my senior leader’s integrity and character.

Now some three decades later, I have had a chance to look at the landscape that you and your peers have created while I was away serving my country. While I worked hard to create an environment of domestic safety to let you govern, I am astonished at what you and your peers have accomplished during that time. I realize now how dumb I was to assume that you and your peers would look out for our country by the application of simple common sense, govern judiciously, and do what was right. Do you remember when being in Congress was an honorable thing? It does not appear now that is the case.

Do you remember that oath we both took to support and defend the US Constitution? I kept my oath ... what happened to the one you swore?