Follow by Email

Total Pageviews

Friday, August 26, 2011

Week In Review August 26, 2011

A number of issues have been expanded on this week. The most important of which, I think, include Syria and Department of Homeland Security.

Syria
In 1963 the al-Assad family took control of Syrian leadership. Basher, the current president, was born shortly after. He took power when his father died; in 2000 and 2007 Basher was “elected” after running unopposed each time. The al-Assad family has long been involved in chemical weapons (receiving several plane loads from Iraq in 2002), weapons proliferation with Iran, as well as routinely their subjects, err, citizens (he was elected, after all).

So what? Here the world can see that a slightly less megalomaniac than Ahmadinijad is doing precisely what Saddam Hussein and Mommar Khadafy did. Where they were forcibly and violently removed from power, after 32 and 42 years in absolute control, the al-Assad family stands unopposed by anyone outside of Syria. In fact, the UN cannot even bring a full coalition of outrage in a letter about al-Assad as Russia and China (both receiving US development funds as well as other US aid) are siding with al-Assad. I say siding with as they are not opposing nor speaking out, they are blocking further (useless) sanctions and any actual action that would follow the eventual and blatant violation of sanctions. Again, the “So What” here is that al-Assad is slaughtering his own subjects. Russia, China, and Iran are all backing al-Assad. Iran has funded, armed, and made numerous deals and deployments into Syria. Russia, China, and Iran have all stated that they want to, not just see, but be part of the destruction of the United States.

Now what? Not that I advocate total annihilation or genocide; I do, however, believe in the pre-emptive strike in order to defend a nation’s sovereignty and safety. A nation may also conduct a pre-emptive defensive strike to protect allies that are unable or incapable of defending themselves. Self-Defense on a national basis is what I am calling it. Right now, due to the START Treaty that Obama unwisely signed with the Russians, we now have a surplus of nuclear weapons. Does anyone see a problem with Syrian Green Glass? Yes, take a tactical nuke and put it into Basher al-Assad’s palace. No big loss of oil there. One homicidal and deeply twisted dictator and his entire family line are taken out. No ground troops from the US or coalition nations in harm’s way, done.

What about Obama’s Executive Order 13338? That? The executive order that prohibits us from buying oil from a country that produces less oil yearly than the US uses in a month? I think I called that an empty gesture from an empty suit. Representative Granger wants to see something with teeth, like having the $2 BILLION tax dollars budgeted to Egypt removed if they continue to oppose Western interests.



The Department of Homeland Security preparedness grant program awards for fiscal year 2011 puts $2.1 BILLION tax dollars into security initiatives and response organizations. None, or very little, of this $2.1 BILLION tax dollars seems to go into answering the questions presented by Dr. Jim Giermanski, Chairman Powers Global Holdings, Inc.

1.  Does DHS believe and support the use of Container Security Devices (CSDs) as being consistent with law, foreign security programs, non-government organizations, and the private sector bottom-line needs?
2. Does DHS believe that container security technology and CSDs serve as revenue producers for the private sector?
3. Why is the official policy on physical security for containers sealed "doors-only?"
4. Other than the incentives claimed by CBP for the private sector's participation in C-TPAT, what U.S. government incentive is used to encourage the use of CSDs?
5. Why is DHS not participating with the EU and other nations who are working together to develop an international standards and protocols for CSDs?
6. What can Congress do, but has not done to encourage CSD usage? 
7. What has DHS done with respect  to informing and encouraging Congress to ratify the Rotterdam Rules recognizing that these new Rules improve supply chain security?
8. Given increased security concerns about Mexico, what CSD pilots or programs have been used or tested in Mexico/U.S. cross-border commercial practices?
9. In which CSD pilots, if any, has DHS participated?
10. Why is DHS not complying with the mandates of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 with respect to CSD for usage HAZMAT movements?
11. If Trade Facilitation is one goal of CBP, why wouldn't CBP/DHS required the use of CSDs knowing that their usage is a financial benefit to the user as well as to the government?
12. Since DHS admits that transshipments are a legitimate security concern, why hasn't DHS mandated CSD usage for all containers inbound to the United States which transit a transshipment port?
13. Why has the "Green Lane" concept not yet been implemented in seaports to encourage CSD usage?
14. Why continue weak programs such as CSI knowing there is no actual verification of container contents?
15. Why is it that DHS/CBP has not yet addressed the current proven vulnerability of using the required 433.5 to 434.5 MHz spectrum in our ports knowing and admitting in writing along with the Office of the Secretary of Defense that the vulnerability truly exists as indicated in this DHS statement: ... these technologies...can be exploited and potentially used to trigger an explosive device.
16. Has DHS funded or directed an empirical study of the impact of closing all U.S. seaports and land ports-of-entry as a result of one or two dirty bomb blasts in the U.S. ports?

So, this week, while Ron Paul and 77% of the sitting democrats voted against enabling rules of engagement that actually PROTECT our military personnel, Janet Napolitano is spending $2.1 BILLION of our tax dollars on initiatives and response.

So what? DHS has put another $2.1 BILLION tax dollars into feel good initiatives rather than actually identifying and stopping threats.

Now what? I propose we do away with the Department of Homeland Security. But, they are there in case of a National Emergency, you say. What about the National Guard? Aren't they dual hatted to serve in support of the military AND to serve their states in response to national emergencies? Well, yes, they are. What about the highly important and visible role they play at airports? Don't most airports already have police, fire, rescue, and security elemnts working there? Well, yes, they do. Now what, you ask. The government tears down, repeals the institutionalized walls outlawing the sharing of information that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in putting up and allow the standing and proven methods of investigative, law enforcement, intelligence, and common sense to work.

Oh, yes, support Electrolux, they said that putting more sharia compliant rules in play within their organization sucks.

Thank you and have a great weekend.

No comments:

Post a Comment