Is Mexico Our Lethal Dirty Bomb Threat?

In December of last year, the Mexican authorities were fortunately, able to recover radioactive material that had been stolen two weeks earlier.  The fact that it was able to be taken in the first place raised fears that, in the wrong hands, this kind of nuclear material could be used to create extremely lethal  dirty bombs.  Fortunately, the thieves in this case contaminated themselves because they were totally unaware of what they had stolen.

Now, just about 8 months later, another container full of radioactive material was again stolen in Mexico.

As a country with such a porous border, the United States should be extremely concerned about the apparent lack of security accompanying these transports through Mexico.  It would only take one of these shipments and a limited amount of expertise to smuggle this it into our country and turn it into a deadly bomb using conventional explosives.

These two stories should serve as a wake up call to all those who think we don't have to beef up the security on our southern border.  Not just to keep illegals from entering but, to keep us safe from what could be a serious threat.

References:

December 2013: Truck carrying dangerous radioactive material stolen in Mexico: http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-mexico-radioactive-material-theft-20131204-story.html

Mexico finds stolen radioactive material amid dirty bomb fear: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/05/us-mexico-nuclear-iaea-idUSBRE9B30J820131205

July 4, 2014: Radioactive material stolen in Mexico: officials: http://news.yahoo.com/radioactive-material-stolen-mexico-officials-174602973.html

Chicago: July 4th Killings/Shootings Beat 2013

Chicago's Mayor has been kicking back and celebrating the year's drop in deadly violence in his city compared to years past.

However, this year's 4th of July weekend just proved that violence must still be in that city's genes.

Last year, 12 people died of gunshots and 74 were wounded.  This year, with violence supposedly down, 14 people lost their lives and 82 were wounded. 

References:

2013: Chicago erupts in gun violence: 74 people shot, 12 killed over July 4 weekend: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0708/Chicago-erupts-in-gun-violence-74-people-shot-12-killed-over-July-4-weekend

2014: Fourth of July weekend toll: 82 shot, 14 of them fatally, in Chicago: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-fourth-of-july-toll-82-shot-14-of-them-fatally-in-chicago-20140707,0,5439185.story

Decades Of Labor Participation Wiped Out and Continuing to Decline

In 1997 -- 14 years before the supposed wave of retiring baby boomers were to start hitting the economy -- the number of workers participating in labor peaked at 68.1%. This after having climbed from a low of 57.9% in 1965.  Compared to that high in 1997, the current participation rate has fallen nearly 8% to today's level of 62.8%; now equaling levels not seen since 1978.  And the current decline -- post recession --  has significantly accelerated since 2007.

In a recent report release by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), almost all of the newly created jobs in this country since 2000 have gone to immigrants; both legal and illegal.  During that same period, 58 million natural born citizens simply dropped out of the workforce.

So, how do 58 million workers survive not working?

Many find filing for Social Security disability insurance a new way to get a lifetime of pay without having to work.  As a result, we now have a record 11 million on disability; or, approximately, one out of every fourteen working age citizens collecting insurance.  Because of poor economic times, 36 percent of 18-to-31 year-olds or more than 21 million are living at home; most not working.  This, too, is the reason that gang membership has swelled to 1.4 million; up from 1 million in 2009 and 750,000 in 2000. The welfare rolls have been exploding with 15% of the population or 46.5 million in poverty and many eligible for full benefits including income.  Others aren't working because of college or the military.

The declining trend in labor participation is putting this country at risk economically. As the participation rate declines, it means that fewer and fewer of us are paying taxes and paying towards programs like Social Security and Medicare; and, subsequently, more and more of us are living off of the government instead of assisting it.

Essentially, the decline in labor participation also means that America is becoming a poorer country with incomes either stagnant or declining while the cost of living increases at a faster pace.  This is evidenced by the fact that median incomes in the U.S. pretty much peaked in 1998; exactly one year  after the 1997 peak in the participation rate:

During that same period where incomes were in decline, the cost of things we buy went up 48%.

America must wake up to the fact that the country is in decline with too few people working.  We are becoming the very essence of the European economies that have high unemployment; high taxes; unmanageable government debt; and, low business profits.  You can find all kinds of reasons for this: an increasingly poorly educated workforce with the good jobs either going overseas or being handed to better educated immigrants on work visas; or, because of increased government regulation that accelerated during the Clinton years and are even more oppressive under Obama; and/or, too high taxes on businesses that continue to make our companies less competitive in a world marketplace and which, prevent both the volume and quality of jobs being created.  At the same time we need to reassess all of our government assistance programs to insure that people who can work do work.

References:

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU01300000

Disability Beneficiaries Hit New Record: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/10996447-disability-beneficiaries-hit-new-record

June 2014: Civilian Workforce Participation Rate: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

America’s Shameful Poverty Stats: http://www.thenation.com/article/176242/americas-shameful-poverty-stats

A Record 21.6 Million Millennials Living With Parents: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/millennials-live-with-parents_n_3690870.html

2009 Gang Statistics: http://www.statisticbrain.com/gang-statistics/

2014 Gang Data: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs

Median Income Falls For 5th Year, Inequality At Record High: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html

Year-to-Year U.S. Inflation Calculator: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Obama's Legacy: Being the Worst President?

In two separate, recent polls, Barack Obama has found himself in the unenviable position of being the "worst" of his presidential predecessors.

In a Gallup poll, he found himself dead last among all other living presidents.  Adding insult to injury he even trailed behind Jimmy Carter -- arguably, the previous worst president in modern times. Along with finding himself at the bottom, those polled awarded him with a favorability rating of less than 50%. All others managed to at least score over 50%.

And, in a Quinnipiac poll, the current President found himself, once again, at the bottom of the heap with 33% of those respondents labeling him as the "worst".  Second from the bottom was George W. Bush -- the same guy that Obama seems to blame for everything that's gone wrong since he's taken office.  Obviously, Americans don't share his opinion of George W.

I think that both of these polls reflect the incompetence of Obama's handling of both domestic and foreign policy.  Like or not, he is not a strong President.  Unable to negotiate or compromise, he is constantly going around Congress by issuing executive orders; many of which, are overreaching, violate the Constitution, and are being struck down in the courts.  On the foreign policy front, one is hard pressed to find a success. Most of the Middle East is in flames, or on the verge of it. China and Russia are flexing their muscles against their neighbors, and both of those countries are vying to be the biggest kid on the block.

Sadly, Obama is not listening to what the polls are saying because he just continues to barrel down his ideological highway by declaring that he will continue his planned end-runs around Congress and the Constitution.  While some pundits might be pooh-poohing either of these polls in isolation, the reality is that two separate sources independently came to the same conclusion: Obama is the worst President in modern times.

References:

Of Living Presidents, Obama Has Least Favorable Approval Rating: http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx

POLL: Obama Worst Modern-Day President: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/poll-obama-worst-modern-day-111329150.html

Canada Tires of Waiting For Obama. Approves A New Pipeline to Supply Asia (China).

The President has delayed the Keystone Pipeline Project for almost as long as he's been in office.  That pipeline would have brought oil from Canada for refinement throughout the central and southern United States; and it now seems to be in jeopardy.  The Canadian government has just approved a trans-Canada pipeline that would move the oil that was originally destined for the Keystone Pipeline to their Pacific ports for shipments to Asia; primarily China.

So, instead of counting on our friendly neighbor to the north to supply us with oil, that neighbor has been forced to help China instead.  And, that oil, that would have been more cleanly refined in the U.S., will probably be processed in a country whose CO2 emission laws hardly exist.  As a result, Obama is actually responsible for creating more CO2 pollution than if it had been processed here in the US.  Is this what going it alone on Climate Change is all about?

Reference:

Canada OKs oil pipeline to the Pacific Coast: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/canada-oks-oil-pipeline-pacific-coast

How The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision Is Being Distorted By Media

In headline after headline, the Supreme Court decision, siding with Hobby Lobby, is being grossly distorted by calling it a decision against a woman's reproductive health; or, more generally: contraception.  This is a complete lie.

What is not being told, is the fact that Hobby Lobby and the other litigant, Conestoga, already provided insurance with contraceptive coverage for 16 of 20 methods of contraception that were mandated by ObamaCare; meeting the contraception needs of 95% of the women working at their companies. Their's was not an argument against providing contraception or, somehow, a kind of war against women's reproductive health.  What they did object to is having to be told by Obama and his Department of Health and Human Services that they have to provide therapeutic abortion drugs such as Plan B as part of their medical insurance plans.  This is the only and true basis of their religious objection.

I think one of the most distorted headlines about the Supreme Court decision was this from NBC: "Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control."  It paints "employers", in a broad brush fashion, being able to deny birth control coverage. That is simply a lie.  The decision by the high court was limited to companies that are non-public owned and whose ownership is closely held by, for example, a family -- as was the case for Hobby Lobby.  All other employers must comply with the ObamaCare mandate to provide total contraceptive coverage; including abortive drugs.

The reality is that many, if not most employers had already provided some forms of contraception; and, they did so long before ObamaCare.  It is just good business in several ways.  Coverage of contraception is a recruiting tool that is able to attract good, qualified female employees; just as other benefits would.  Also, a pregnancy can be very costly to a company.  Under existing laws, women are entitled to maternity leave with their jobs held for them when they return.  As a result, companies must hire some form of temporary help to cover the loss of a woman on leave.  While some lower level jobs are easy to cover with temporary help, some higher level vacancies must be supplemented with extremely expensive consulting and contract labor.

Now, one last important note.  ObamaCare is designed to literally destroy the system of employer-based insurance in this country.  That's why the penalty for not providing it is so low; relative to the cost of providing insurance. So, the Hobby Lobby win is a moot point because, that company, like so many others, will probably elect to pay the ObamaCare employer mandate tax penalty and force their employees to buy their own insurance through the exchanges; assuming ObamaCare hasn't been repealed.  And, once an employee is in the exchange, all forms of contraception are covered; including those designed to be abortive.

References:

New Research Shows that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Provide the Contraceptive of Choice to Over 95% of Women it Ensures: http://reproductiveresearchaudit.com/new-research-shows-that-hobby-lobby-and-conestoga-provide-the-contraceptive-of-choice-to-over-95-of-women-it-ensures-only-330-women-likely-not-covered-for-abortion-causing-drugsdevices/

Hobby Lobby Ruling: Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control:  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hobby-lobby-ruling-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

Obamacare And The End Of Employer-Based Health Insurance:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/11/14/obamacare-and-the-end-of-employer-based-health-insurance/

Obamacare Architect Emanuel: Most Employers Will Drop Health Coverage: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Emanuel-employers-drop-health/2014/03/21/id/560906/

Why Air Strikes Might Not Be Effective In Iraq

Most people seem to think that a fighter/bomber pilot can just jump into their assigned aircraft, fly off and complete their mission.  Now, that might be true if the pilot is aiming at a well-known and easily identifiable landmark or some easily-seen column of soldiers or military vehicles.

Having myself served as a military air controller, I know that pilots literally need "eyes on the ground" in the form of a FAC (Forward Air Controller) in order to insure that the real targets, and not some collateral targets, are being destroyed.  So, in essence and contrary to President Obama's commitment not to put boots on the ground, we do need people there to conduct airstrikes. First, to act as an intelligence source to determine what has to be attacked and, too, to act as a qualified FAC to direct and control the needed strikes.  Although, I am sure Special Forces personnel are quite able to both surveil the situation and call for and direct air strikes.

But, make no mistake, sending our forces into Iraq, to operate behind the lines in areas already controlled by the ISIS terrorists, would be an extremely dangerous mission; only achievable if our military personnel can easily and quickly assimilate into the ISIS-controlled Sunni population and be able to move freely enough to determine valued targets.   I just don't see this President putting our military personnel in that level of harms way.

What I think Obama will do is allow drone strikes on easily-identifiable columns of ISIS personnel; never once putting any of our actual military personnel at risk. Thus showing Americans that we are doing something to fix the broken situation in Iraq.  But, drones can't carry a lot of weaponry.  So, what will be required are numerous strikes with clear targeting of only visually identifiable targets; resulting in only limited success in curbing the ISIS march to control the country of Iraq.  Then, too, there's the problem of former Iraqi tanks and Humvee that are commandeered by ISIS in battle after battle on Iraqi soil.  It will be very difficult for drones and other aircraft to determine if any particular Iraqi tank or Humvee is under Iraqi control or ISIS control.

The truth is that Iraq is the proverbial "Humpty Dumpty" and it is now too late to try and put it back together again.  There is no way  we can reverse the situation in that country without another invasion.  What we had before we removed all our troops can never be recreated using the limited capability of the Iraqis and a few limited airstrikes.