We've known this all along...
Sorry about being a little late getting this issue of the "Pearson Report" out to you. With the spring session of the General Assembly coming to a close, things got a little hectic in my corner of the world. But, there is a silver lining to this cloud. Since I last wrote to you, a whole lot of things happened in the gun rights arena that certainly deserve discussion.
But, before I get to a discussion of current events, I'd like to thank all of you who came out to the ISRA Legal Assistance Committee banquet back on the 28th. We all had a wonderful time and a bunch of lucky people walked away with some great guns and other prizes. Thanks again for making this event such a great success!
As many of you know, the U.S. Supreme Court is only weeks, or even days away from rendering their decision in the McDonald v. Chicago lawsuit. As luck would have it, no fewer than three incidents occurred in the past couple of weeks where every day Chicago citizens used illegal handguns to put a stop to criminal activity on their property.
The first of these three incidents began tragically with the cold blooded murder of an off duty Chicago police officer by a gang of thugs right in front of his father's house. In response to the attack, the victim's father drew his own handgun and fired on the thugs - killing one. It doesn't take much of a stretch to say that the father's actions probably saved the lives of good guys.
The second, and very well publicized event, pitted an 80 year-old Korean War veteran against a gun-toting thug who was breaking into his house. The home owner used an illegal handgun to dispatch the career criminal as he came through a window. Again, the quick thinking of the armed citizen saved the lives of innocent people - namely the homeowner's wife and their great grandson.
Just days later, a criminal fleeing from the police dove through a window of a home in Chicago, only to be met on the other side by a citizen armed with an illegal handgun. You all know what happened next.
Each of these three stories illustrates well something we have known all along - the armed citizen is the best defense against criminal mayhem. Apparently, that same sentiment is fairly strong within the city as well. In a copyrighted story appearing in the the June 6 edition of the "Chicago Tribune," reporter Duaa Eldeib cites an independent estimate that as many as 100,000 otherwise law-abiding homes have handguns in violation of the city ordinance. Evidently there is a whole slew of Chicago citizens who subscribe to the old adage that, "...it's better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six."
The public response to these three incidents of self defense has been pretty much one-sided. The case involving the Korean War vet generated world-wide interest with news here at home overwhelmingly positive. The image of an 80 year-old man successfully defending his family from a thug with a long history of violence is certainly a study in courage and heroism. Publicly attacking a hero for daring to own a handgun in violation of a city ordinance doesn't do much for one's credibility. Thus we haven't really heard a peep out of the gun control movement other than some vague references to a debunked study claiming that having a firearm in your home makes you 43 times more likely to be murdered.
The near silence on the part of the gun control movement shows only that they are smart enough to know that there was no way they could spin the story in their benefit. It would certainly be tough to argue that the vet and his family if he had been unarmed. We could have heard the tired anti gunner message that neither one should have had a gun - but is it really a good idea for an 80 year-old to go hand to hand with a 30 year old? No, we heard nothing from the gun-grabbers because they know nobody would listen to them. It's becoming abundantly clear that growing numbers of citizens have come to realize that the gun control movement's campaign is morally bankrupt - a sham.
Probably the most entertaining gun-related event in recent weeks was Mayor Daley's press conference calling for more gun control. As most of you know already, a reporter asked the mayor to comment on the seeming ineffectiveness of the city's gun ban. In response Daley threatened to insert the barrel of a prop gun into the reporter's rectum and fire a round.
All Freudian implications aside, the Mayor's outburst give us clearer insight into the Mayor's view on firearms and those who own them. It's evident that Daley sees firearms as tools of intimidation, domination and violence and, thus, firearm owners are violent people who seek to intimidate and dominate those around them. Well, at least that is what he would like the media to believe about firearm owners.
When it was all said and done, Daley's "up your butt" comment seriously backfired. From here on out, it will be difficult for anyone to take him seriously when he starts talking about guns - which is fine with me.
One last thing before I let you go. Please mark June 26th on your calendar and plan to attend the ISRA Range Open House! This will be our 8th Open House and we are doing everyhting we can to make it the best ever. As in the past, we'll have reps from all the major firearm manufacturers on hand so there'll be plenty of great guns for you to try out. So, make a date to come on out to the range on the 26th. The fun begins at 10 and things wind down at 4. For further information, please visit the ISRA web site at http://www.isra.org See you then!!
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Military chiefs split with Mullen on gays
By Rowan Scarborough
The debate over gays in the military has driven an extraordinary public wedge between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and the four service chiefs who collectively make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, in February first broke with the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps by endorsing President Obama's campaign pledge to end the military's ban on open homosexuals.
The gap widened last week. Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military, rather than waiting for completion in December of a Pentagon study that is seeking the views of troops. Adm. Mullen's move brought an instant rebuttal from the four chiefs in the form of letters to Congress urging lawmakers not to hold the vote.
In fact, the service chiefs did not see the Pentagon-White House-congressional deal to rush a vote until after the administration announced it May 24, Pentagon officials said.
Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who opposes lifting the ban, said he has never seen such a significant public split between the chiefs and the chairman.
"The chairman is deeply beholden to the secretary of defense and the president," said the former four-star officer, who directed the 1991 air war against Iraq. "He is in a tougher position than the service chiefs. And also the service chiefs are more directly concerned with things like readiness and personnel policies. I can see where this split occurs, for understandable reasons."
Asked whether he had ever witnessed such public disagreement with the four-star officers who run the military, Mr. Horner answered, "No, I have not."
On Thursday, Democrats in the House and on the Senate Armed Services Committee ignored the service chiefs and voted to repeal the gay ban, likely assuring a bill will reach Mr. Obama's desk this year.
The breach began in February. Adm. Mullen went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and endorsed repealing the military's ban, telling Congress it was forcing gay service members to live a lie. Some in the Pentagon were struck by Adm. Mullen's enthusiastic endorsement, although the Joint Chiefs chairman acknowledged he did not know how lifting the ban would affect combat readiness.
Then came the service chiefs' congressional testimony. They pointedly refused to endorse a repeal of the 1993 law that led to a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
The chiefs said they wanted to await the Dec. 1 study ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said he had "serious concerns" about what a policy of open homosexuality would do to military readiness. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, said he was flatly opposed to lifting the ban.
As repeal advocates worked to line up floor votes before the November elections, an even deeper split emerged. Mr. Gates and Adm. Mullen had written to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, stating that they "believe in the strongest possible terms" that the impact study should be completed before any votes.
That position put them in line with the service chiefs. But then came the Gates-Mullen flip-flop.
Pressed by the White House, the two leaders endorsed legislation from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, to vote now, with a delayed start date for letting homosexuals serve openly.
To advocates of the ban, the so-called White House "compromise" was in fact an end run around the service chiefs' wishes, because once the ban is repealed, it reduces the importance of what the troops say in Mr. Gates' ongoing study.
"I am concerned that the men and women of our military will view this pre-emptive political action as a deep sign of disrespect and unwillingness to consider their views," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who led the fight to keep the ban.
The service chiefs revolted after Adm. Mullen and Mr. Gates abandoned their no-vote-now stance. Each sent a letter to Mr. McCain on the eve of Thursday's vote asking lawmakers to wait.
Gen. Casey said he thinks "repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward."
Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief, said, "I believe it is important, a matter of keeping the faith with those currently serving in the armed forces, that the secretary of defense-commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal."
Adm. Gary Roughead, the Navy chief, wrote: "My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading sailors to question whether their input matters."
Democrats ignored those pleas and voted anyway. Their concern was that if they waited until the Gates study is complete, after the November elections, Republicans could pick up enough seats to block repeal in 2011.
Perhaps the biggest affront was the fact that the White House, Mr. Gates, Adm. Mullen and Democrats settled on a compromise without allowing the four service chiefs to see it or comment.
Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, endorsed the official compromise on May 24 in a letter to Rep. Patrick J. Murphy, Pennsylvania Democrat, sponsor of the repeal legislation. Vote now on the amendment to repeal, Mr. Orszag said, and the military can later add policies to regulate it, based on the Gates review.
The next day, in a reflection of how the chiefs were shut out, Gen. Casey said he had not seen the compromise language.
Capt. John Kirby, Adm. Mullen's spokesman, told The Washington Times that the chairman told the chiefs on May 21 that there probably would be an amendment to repeal the ban.
Capt. Kirby said Adm. Mullen wanted to speak with the chiefs on May 24 about the exact language. "But it was not possible to do so, due to scheduling conflicts," Capt. Kirby said. "This meeting was held Tuesday the 25th."
The next day, the chiefs sent Mr. McCain their letters opposing the compromise.
"There was a clear expression of the chiefs, and Congress disregarded that because of a budget director," said Elaine Donnelly, whose Michigan-based Center for Military Readiness supports the ban. "The White House chef would have as much credibility on this issue."
Adm. Mullen said on "Fox News Sunday" that he and Mr. Gates will take a methodical approach in deciding exactly when and how the repeal takes effect.
"What I don't want to do is electrify the force at a time when they're going through two, in the time of two wars, the length of time that we've been at war," Adm. Mullen said. "And when we get to a point, we get through the review, we'll understand what it takes to implement it. … I, with the secretary of defense and the president, would certify that we're ready for implementation at the time that that really should take place."
Gen. Horner, a former fighter pilot, said he supports the ban because he fears military readiness will suffer if open homosexuals are allowed to serve, "particularly given the land forces, the way they have to live and operate."
Asked how an Air Force fighter wing will accept openly gay personnel, he said: "There's a lot less prejudice nowadays against people who are gay, but that does not necessarily mean that people want to live side by side with them."
The debate over gays in the military has driven an extraordinary public wedge between the nation's highest-ranking military officer and the four service chiefs who collectively make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, in February first broke with the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps by endorsing President Obama's campaign pledge to end the military's ban on open homosexuals.
The gap widened last week. Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military, rather than waiting for completion in December of a Pentagon study that is seeking the views of troops. Adm. Mullen's move brought an instant rebuttal from the four chiefs in the form of letters to Congress urging lawmakers not to hold the vote.
In fact, the service chiefs did not see the Pentagon-White House-congressional deal to rush a vote until after the administration announced it May 24, Pentagon officials said.
Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who opposes lifting the ban, said he has never seen such a significant public split between the chiefs and the chairman.
"The chairman is deeply beholden to the secretary of defense and the president," said the former four-star officer, who directed the 1991 air war against Iraq. "He is in a tougher position than the service chiefs. And also the service chiefs are more directly concerned with things like readiness and personnel policies. I can see where this split occurs, for understandable reasons."
Asked whether he had ever witnessed such public disagreement with the four-star officers who run the military, Mr. Horner answered, "No, I have not."
On Thursday, Democrats in the House and on the Senate Armed Services Committee ignored the service chiefs and voted to repeal the gay ban, likely assuring a bill will reach Mr. Obama's desk this year.
The breach began in February. Adm. Mullen went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and endorsed repealing the military's ban, telling Congress it was forcing gay service members to live a lie. Some in the Pentagon were struck by Adm. Mullen's enthusiastic endorsement, although the Joint Chiefs chairman acknowledged he did not know how lifting the ban would affect combat readiness.
Then came the service chiefs' congressional testimony. They pointedly refused to endorse a repeal of the 1993 law that led to a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
The chiefs said they wanted to await the Dec. 1 study ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said he had "serious concerns" about what a policy of open homosexuality would do to military readiness. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, said he was flatly opposed to lifting the ban.
As repeal advocates worked to line up floor votes before the November elections, an even deeper split emerged. Mr. Gates and Adm. Mullen had written to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, stating that they "believe in the strongest possible terms" that the impact study should be completed before any votes.
That position put them in line with the service chiefs. But then came the Gates-Mullen flip-flop.
Pressed by the White House, the two leaders endorsed legislation from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, to vote now, with a delayed start date for letting homosexuals serve openly.
To advocates of the ban, the so-called White House "compromise" was in fact an end run around the service chiefs' wishes, because once the ban is repealed, it reduces the importance of what the troops say in Mr. Gates' ongoing study.
"I am concerned that the men and women of our military will view this pre-emptive political action as a deep sign of disrespect and unwillingness to consider their views," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who led the fight to keep the ban.
The service chiefs revolted after Adm. Mullen and Mr. Gates abandoned their no-vote-now stance. Each sent a letter to Mr. McCain on the eve of Thursday's vote asking lawmakers to wait.
Gen. Casey said he thinks "repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward."
Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief, said, "I believe it is important, a matter of keeping the faith with those currently serving in the armed forces, that the secretary of defense-commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal."
Adm. Gary Roughead, the Navy chief, wrote: "My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading sailors to question whether their input matters."
Democrats ignored those pleas and voted anyway. Their concern was that if they waited until the Gates study is complete, after the November elections, Republicans could pick up enough seats to block repeal in 2011.
Perhaps the biggest affront was the fact that the White House, Mr. Gates, Adm. Mullen and Democrats settled on a compromise without allowing the four service chiefs to see it or comment.
Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, endorsed the official compromise on May 24 in a letter to Rep. Patrick J. Murphy, Pennsylvania Democrat, sponsor of the repeal legislation. Vote now on the amendment to repeal, Mr. Orszag said, and the military can later add policies to regulate it, based on the Gates review.
The next day, in a reflection of how the chiefs were shut out, Gen. Casey said he had not seen the compromise language.
Capt. John Kirby, Adm. Mullen's spokesman, told The Washington Times that the chairman told the chiefs on May 21 that there probably would be an amendment to repeal the ban.
Capt. Kirby said Adm. Mullen wanted to speak with the chiefs on May 24 about the exact language. "But it was not possible to do so, due to scheduling conflicts," Capt. Kirby said. "This meeting was held Tuesday the 25th."
The next day, the chiefs sent Mr. McCain their letters opposing the compromise.
"There was a clear expression of the chiefs, and Congress disregarded that because of a budget director," said Elaine Donnelly, whose Michigan-based Center for Military Readiness supports the ban. "The White House chef would have as much credibility on this issue."
Adm. Mullen said on "Fox News Sunday" that he and Mr. Gates will take a methodical approach in deciding exactly when and how the repeal takes effect.
"What I don't want to do is electrify the force at a time when they're going through two, in the time of two wars, the length of time that we've been at war," Adm. Mullen said. "And when we get to a point, we get through the review, we'll understand what it takes to implement it. … I, with the secretary of defense and the president, would certify that we're ready for implementation at the time that that really should take place."
Gen. Horner, a former fighter pilot, said he supports the ban because he fears military readiness will suffer if open homosexuals are allowed to serve, "particularly given the land forces, the way they have to live and operate."
Asked how an Air Force fighter wing will accept openly gay personnel, he said: "There's a lot less prejudice nowadays against people who are gay, but that does not necessarily mean that people want to live side by side with them."
Mark Kirk's Former Commanding Officer Speaks Out
Dear Friend:
Yesterday, Mark Kirk's Commanding Officer during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) released the following statement. Please share this with family and friends:
As a retired Navy Captain and Mark Kirk’s commanding officer during Operation Allied Force, there are two things that have deeply troubled me since I read the Washington Post’s story about Mark’s intelligence officer award.
First, the complete lack of a benefit of the doubt – the idea that someone could make an honest mistake has become so foreign that the immediate assumption has become – you misrepresented or worse you lied. In Mark’s case neither is factual.
And second, that an honest mistake related to the identification of a military award is the same as pretending to be in Vietnam when you were not. This also doesn’t apply to Mark Kirk
Mark Kirk served under my command in Aviano, Italy, during Operation Allied Force – the Kosovo campaign. For his exceptional service as the lead intelligence officer of a combat intelligence action team – the largest EA-6B intelligence shop in the history of naval aviation which he assembled – I nominated then Lieutenant Commander Kirk for a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award. He received both.
When I nominated Mark for the Rufus Taylor award I thought it was more specific to Mark and not his team. But the reality is, there would have been no team without Mark Kirk’s leadership and there certainly would have been no award. I can certainly understand why he would have referred to this award over the years as intelligence officer of the year – it’s how I viewed the award. And in actuality, the two awards in question are of equal stature and significance.
Mark Kirk is the finest intelligence officer I have ever served with – hands down. His wealth of knowledge during this conflict put him in a position to take charge of intelligence members from the four deployed squadrons and meld them into a combat intelligence action team.
Any suggestion that Mark Kirk did not earn or receive the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award is incorrect. I would further add, assertions I’ve seen that Mark Kirk embellished or exaggerated his record are ridiculous – he is one of the finest Naval Officers I have had the honor to work with. His intelligence, leadership skills, and keen understanding of global affairs are an asset that the Navy and, today, the Congress are fortunate to enjoy.
Captain Clay Fearnow
United States Navy (Retired)
Former Commanding Officer, VAQ-209
Yesterday, Mark Kirk's Commanding Officer during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) released the following statement. Please share this with family and friends:
As a retired Navy Captain and Mark Kirk’s commanding officer during Operation Allied Force, there are two things that have deeply troubled me since I read the Washington Post’s story about Mark’s intelligence officer award.
First, the complete lack of a benefit of the doubt – the idea that someone could make an honest mistake has become so foreign that the immediate assumption has become – you misrepresented or worse you lied. In Mark’s case neither is factual.
And second, that an honest mistake related to the identification of a military award is the same as pretending to be in Vietnam when you were not. This also doesn’t apply to Mark Kirk
Mark Kirk served under my command in Aviano, Italy, during Operation Allied Force – the Kosovo campaign. For his exceptional service as the lead intelligence officer of a combat intelligence action team – the largest EA-6B intelligence shop in the history of naval aviation which he assembled – I nominated then Lieutenant Commander Kirk for a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award. He received both.
When I nominated Mark for the Rufus Taylor award I thought it was more specific to Mark and not his team. But the reality is, there would have been no team without Mark Kirk’s leadership and there certainly would have been no award. I can certainly understand why he would have referred to this award over the years as intelligence officer of the year – it’s how I viewed the award. And in actuality, the two awards in question are of equal stature and significance.
Mark Kirk is the finest intelligence officer I have ever served with – hands down. His wealth of knowledge during this conflict put him in a position to take charge of intelligence members from the four deployed squadrons and meld them into a combat intelligence action team.
Any suggestion that Mark Kirk did not earn or receive the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award is incorrect. I would further add, assertions I’ve seen that Mark Kirk embellished or exaggerated his record are ridiculous – he is one of the finest Naval Officers I have had the honor to work with. His intelligence, leadership skills, and keen understanding of global affairs are an asset that the Navy and, today, the Congress are fortunate to enjoy.
Captain Clay Fearnow
United States Navy (Retired)
Former Commanding Officer, VAQ-209
Mark Kirk's military history: 3 views
Dennis Byrne
June 1, 2010
The views are from (1) those who believe the Illinois Republican candidate for US Senate.
Mark Kirk, has exaggerated his military record; (2) those who think that he is getting a bum rap, and (3) mine.
Here is a clarification from Kirk himself about the honors he has received from his military service.
Here is an article saying that embellishing his military record is not something new for Kirk
My view: As I've said before, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who now is running for senator, is a low-life for falsely said he served "in" the Vietnam War, when he should have said he served "during" the Vietnam War. People who misrepresent their service to the country are snakes.
Kirk comes close to the fudging that difference, but doesn't go as far as Blumenthal. Kirk's main misdeed appears to be claim to have won an individual award, when it actually went to a unit.
Kirk, however, has done one important thing that has received virtually no media attention: He has posted his fitness reports on line for all to see what kind of Naval officer he has been. Read them here. As a former Navy officer, I know that these evaluations can sometimes be brutally honest and destructive of an officer's career…
I read nothing like that in these reports. Among the glowing comments from his commanding officers:
•"Personally recognized by numerous flag, air wing and squadron commanders for providing the most comprehensive, concise Balkan intelligence picture in EUCOM theater."
•"Phenomenal performance as senior Navy Intel Officer deployed to Aviano [air base] Ital in support of Operation ALLIED FORCE. Would rank #1 of 20 if compared to all officers in this command."
•"Head and shoulders aove any other Intelligence Officer I have ever met."
•"Unmatched in knowlege of foreign capabilities."
•"A true team leader."
•"Definite command potential. A natural and charismatic leader. A superlative speaker and briefer. LCDR Kirk possesses the credentials and qualification to excel in any assignment. Confident and savvy."
•"Set the standard for tactical intelligence briefs..."
•"Promote to [commander] now!"
Imagine that, someone who's actually competent running for Congress. Uh, can we say the same about Kirk's Democratic opponent in the Senate race, Alexi Giannoulias--the guy said he knew about banking because he was a big shot in his family's banking business and then, after his bank failed, said that he was just a lower level employee. Talk about embellishing your service record. Maybe Giannoulias should release his fitness reports too. Oh, that's right, Giannoulias didn't volunteer for the military, like Kirk.
June 1, 2010
The views are from (1) those who believe the Illinois Republican candidate for US Senate.
Mark Kirk, has exaggerated his military record; (2) those who think that he is getting a bum rap, and (3) mine.
Here is a clarification from Kirk himself about the honors he has received from his military service.
Here is an article saying that embellishing his military record is not something new for Kirk
My view: As I've said before, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who now is running for senator, is a low-life for falsely said he served "in" the Vietnam War, when he should have said he served "during" the Vietnam War. People who misrepresent their service to the country are snakes.
Kirk comes close to the fudging that difference, but doesn't go as far as Blumenthal. Kirk's main misdeed appears to be claim to have won an individual award, when it actually went to a unit.
Kirk, however, has done one important thing that has received virtually no media attention: He has posted his fitness reports on line for all to see what kind of Naval officer he has been. Read them here. As a former Navy officer, I know that these evaluations can sometimes be brutally honest and destructive of an officer's career…
I read nothing like that in these reports. Among the glowing comments from his commanding officers:
•"Personally recognized by numerous flag, air wing and squadron commanders for providing the most comprehensive, concise Balkan intelligence picture in EUCOM theater."
•"Phenomenal performance as senior Navy Intel Officer deployed to Aviano [air base] Ital in support of Operation ALLIED FORCE. Would rank #1 of 20 if compared to all officers in this command."
•"Head and shoulders aove any other Intelligence Officer I have ever met."
•"Unmatched in knowlege of foreign capabilities."
•"A true team leader."
•"Definite command potential. A natural and charismatic leader. A superlative speaker and briefer. LCDR Kirk possesses the credentials and qualification to excel in any assignment. Confident and savvy."
•"Set the standard for tactical intelligence briefs..."
•"Promote to [commander] now!"
Imagine that, someone who's actually competent running for Congress. Uh, can we say the same about Kirk's Democratic opponent in the Senate race, Alexi Giannoulias--the guy said he knew about banking because he was a big shot in his family's banking business and then, after his bank failed, said that he was just a lower level employee. Talk about embellishing your service record. Maybe Giannoulias should release his fitness reports too. Oh, that's right, Giannoulias didn't volunteer for the military, like Kirk.
Morris: Obama doesn’t have a clue
By DIck Morris - 06/01/10 07:03 PM ET
Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.
America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.
The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.
All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.
Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.
And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.
Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.
And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.
America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.
Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.
Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced and Catastrophe. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan, go to dickmorris.com. In August, Morris became a strategist for the League of American Voters, which is running ads opposing the president’s healthcare reforms.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/100913-obama-doesnt-have-a-clue
Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.
America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.
The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.
All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.
Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.
And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.
Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.
And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.
America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.
Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.
Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced and Catastrophe. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan, go to dickmorris.com. In August, Morris became a strategist for the League of American Voters, which is running ads opposing the president’s healthcare reforms.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/100913-obama-doesnt-have-a-clue
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
My Navy Service Official Record Speaks for Itself-Mark Kirk
from Mark Kirk, candidate for U.S. Senate
I was commissioned as an Ensign in the US Navy Reserve in 1989. I have now served 21 years. For the last 10 years, as a Member of Congress, I served without pay because I love the Navy, her duty, honor, country. In uniform, I served during conflicts with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Bosnia. I am proud of my service – it is the honor of my life to work with Americans who keep America safe.
Last week, I found that I misidentified a military award and corrected my biography. According to the Washington Post, their reporter worked with Alexi Giannoulias' campaign to write a story that turned out to be imprecise about the title of an award included in that biography.
The error was discovered last week by my staff. Going through my Fitness Reports for 1999/2000, we recognized that referring to an award as “Intelligence Officer of the Year” was not precise – so we corrected my biography with the official name of a very distinguished award that I am honored to have received.
My corrected biography accurately shows I received the United States Navy Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award – as the leader of an ad-hoc intelligence effort supporting four EA-6B Prowler electronic attack squadrons as part of Operation Allied Force – instead of Intelligence Officer of the Year. I accepted the Taylor Intelligence Award (named after the head of navy intelligence in World War II) as the leader of an intelligence section that I assembled and led. There is no hierarchy between these awards as the Taylor Intelligence Award is equally distinguished.
I knew Alexi Giannoulias would focus on a negative campaign – in fact, he and his consultants announced that in the New York Times. I corrected the record, but I will not let my 21 years of service in uniform be denigrated by Alexi Giannoulias, a man who chose not to serve.
Frankly, I thought it took some nerve when he ran a television ad claiming credit for what amounted to tens of millions in investment losses from the college savings of thousands of working families under Illinois Bright Start – or to follow it up with a second ad looking for sympathy after so many of his decisions ran his bank into the ground, costing the FDIC $394 million. But coming after my 21-year Navy service record just might top those.
In November, Illinois voters have a choice – so let us look at my opponent’s record – here it is. Because of that record he has made a strategic decision to attack my military service record. I understand politics is a tough business – but this attack orchestrated by Alexi Giannoulias is a disgrace.
My official Navy records speak for themselves – read them here.
http://images.kirkforsenate.com/Kirk%20-%20Fitness%20Reports%20(2).pdf
Our state and nation face serious problems - and having a veteran's military record challenged by a politician who never served and was anointed by the media as a "mob banker" is absurd.
I look forward to the contest and laying out the choice. If Alexi wants to make this race about my military record, I'm happy to have the debate. Thank you for your continued support.
Very truly yours,
Mark Kirk
Member of Congress
I was commissioned as an Ensign in the US Navy Reserve in 1989. I have now served 21 years. For the last 10 years, as a Member of Congress, I served without pay because I love the Navy, her duty, honor, country. In uniform, I served during conflicts with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Bosnia. I am proud of my service – it is the honor of my life to work with Americans who keep America safe.
Last week, I found that I misidentified a military award and corrected my biography. According to the Washington Post, their reporter worked with Alexi Giannoulias' campaign to write a story that turned out to be imprecise about the title of an award included in that biography.
The error was discovered last week by my staff. Going through my Fitness Reports for 1999/2000, we recognized that referring to an award as “Intelligence Officer of the Year” was not precise – so we corrected my biography with the official name of a very distinguished award that I am honored to have received.
My corrected biography accurately shows I received the United States Navy Rufus L. Taylor Intelligence Award – as the leader of an ad-hoc intelligence effort supporting four EA-6B Prowler electronic attack squadrons as part of Operation Allied Force – instead of Intelligence Officer of the Year. I accepted the Taylor Intelligence Award (named after the head of navy intelligence in World War II) as the leader of an intelligence section that I assembled and led. There is no hierarchy between these awards as the Taylor Intelligence Award is equally distinguished.
I knew Alexi Giannoulias would focus on a negative campaign – in fact, he and his consultants announced that in the New York Times. I corrected the record, but I will not let my 21 years of service in uniform be denigrated by Alexi Giannoulias, a man who chose not to serve.
Frankly, I thought it took some nerve when he ran a television ad claiming credit for what amounted to tens of millions in investment losses from the college savings of thousands of working families under Illinois Bright Start – or to follow it up with a second ad looking for sympathy after so many of his decisions ran his bank into the ground, costing the FDIC $394 million. But coming after my 21-year Navy service record just might top those.
In November, Illinois voters have a choice – so let us look at my opponent’s record – here it is. Because of that record he has made a strategic decision to attack my military service record. I understand politics is a tough business – but this attack orchestrated by Alexi Giannoulias is a disgrace.
My official Navy records speak for themselves – read them here.
http://images.kirkforsenate.com/Kirk%20-%20Fitness%20Reports%20(2).pdf
Our state and nation face serious problems - and having a veteran's military record challenged by a politician who never served and was anointed by the media as a "mob banker" is absurd.
I look forward to the contest and laying out the choice. If Alexi wants to make this race about my military record, I'm happy to have the debate. Thank you for your continued support.
Very truly yours,
Mark Kirk
Member of Congress
Jim Edgar strikes again, (NYT quotes Jim Leahy)
Chicago News Cooperative
Advice From a Winning Republican Governor
By DIRK JOHNSON
Published: May 28, 2010
While this state has elected governors who did not eventually face indictment or go to prison, most college students were not yet born, or are too young to remember.
As political science students at the University of Illinois-Chicago took notes, the former governor Jim Edgar delivered some good news: political corruption is not as bad is it used to be. But he also had bad news: the state is headed down the tubes.
“Hopefully none of you is owed any money by the State of Illinois,” said Mr. Edgar, who led Illinois in the 1990s, “because you might not ever get it.”
There would be no sugar coating: “At some point, universities are going to close their doors,” he said. “Highways are going to fall apart. This is not academic.”
Now a distinguished fellow at the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Mr. Edgar, 63, is seemingly a voice of a Republicanism from another era, touting the virtues of bipartisanship and middle-of-the-road solutions.
He has lately ruffled some feathers in his party by breaking with Bill Brady, the Republican nominee for governor, and calling for an income tax increase favored by Governor Patrick J. Quinn, the Democratic incumbent, to help close a budget deficit of $13 billion in the coming year.
Mr. Edgar cringes at Tea Party bombast and “Obama-is-a-socialist” denunciations. He does not listen to Rush Limbaugh. “People listen to this stuff over and over, and they think it’s all true,” he said. “And they get very angry.”
For his moderate views, Mr. Edgar draws plenty of scorn from the right wing of his party. He supports abortion rights and is an advocate of helping illegal immigrants gain legal status. Jim Leahy, who writes for the conservative Chicago Daily Observer, recently implored: “Please go away Mr. Edgar.”
But if the Republicans are going to capture the governor’s office, some political experts say, they might be smart to ask Mr. Edgar for advice. In contrast to recent state Republican candidates, Mr. Edgar appealed to moderates in Chicago and the suburbs and won plenty of their votes.
When he became governor in 1991, Mr. Edgar inherited a budget deficit of about $2 billion. He raised taxes, cut spending and ultimately left the state with a surplus. In primaries in 1990 and 1994, Mr. Edgar faced challenges from conservatives. When he left office in 1999, he enjoyed approval ratings of some 60 percent. Since his retirement from politics, national party officials have urged him to run for office, especially the United States Senate, on more than one occasion.
For those Republicans who insist on running hard to the right in Illinois, Mr. Edgar suggests they do the math: Without making significant inroads in the Chicago region, where perhaps 70 percent of the votes in the state will be cast, it is difficult to imagine a Republican winning statewide.
Paul M. Green, a political analyst at Roosevelt University, notes that Mr. Edgar is one of the moderates who have been derided by some conservatives as “Rinos” — Republicans in name only. Mr. Green has his own moniker for the critics. “I call them “Raws” — Republicans against winning,” he said. “They can call Jim Edgar whatever they want. But he also has to be called a winner.”
Illinois Republicans hold no statewide offices. Democratic winning margins in Chicago have grown larger as the Republican Party has grown more conservative. In the suburbs, meanwhile, Republicans have lost Congressional offices in traditional strongholds, like DuPage County, where Melissa Bean triumphed. Republicans even lost the far west suburban district long represented by J. Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, to a Democrat, Bill Foster.
Over a breakfast of croissants and tea at the Peninsula Hotel before addressing the students, Mr. Edgar lamented the party’s drift to the right. “Most people are somewhere in the center on things,” he said. “That’s where the votes are.”
He offered tepid support for Mr. Brady in the governor’s race. “I’ll vote for Brady,” he said, “unless something happens.”
He gave Mr. Quinn points for trying to do the right thing on taxes. “I used to think he was a phony,” Mr. Edgar said. “I don’t think so anymore. I think he’s sincere. I just don’t agree with him on everything.”
In the primary, Mr. Edgar supported State Senator Kirk Dillard, Republican of Hinsdale, his former chief of staff. He said he would not be active in the governor’s race, in part because his university job calls for him to maintain some distance from politics.
He said he does intend to make campaign stops for Mark Kirk, the Republican Senate candidate. He said he was obligated to the candidate, “Because I was the one who talked him into running.” He lauded Mr. Kirk as the sort of Republican moderate who could win in Illinois by drawing Democratic votes.
Mr. Edgar’s own willingness to cross party lines and get along with Democrats goes back to his early childhood in his hometown of Charleston. Mr. Edgar said he became involved in politics as a 6-year-old in 1952 during a mock election at school. In the contest between Adlai Stevenson, a Democrat, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, he said he chose Eisenhower, the war hero. When he went home to tell his parents about his choice, he said there were some raised eyebrows. They were Democrats.
“From that day on,” he said, “I was known in the family as ‘The Republican.’ ”
A version of this article appeared in print on May 30, 2010, on page A21B of the National edition.
Advice From a Winning Republican Governor
By DIRK JOHNSON
Published: May 28, 2010
While this state has elected governors who did not eventually face indictment or go to prison, most college students were not yet born, or are too young to remember.
As political science students at the University of Illinois-Chicago took notes, the former governor Jim Edgar delivered some good news: political corruption is not as bad is it used to be. But he also had bad news: the state is headed down the tubes.
“Hopefully none of you is owed any money by the State of Illinois,” said Mr. Edgar, who led Illinois in the 1990s, “because you might not ever get it.”
There would be no sugar coating: “At some point, universities are going to close their doors,” he said. “Highways are going to fall apart. This is not academic.”
Now a distinguished fellow at the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Mr. Edgar, 63, is seemingly a voice of a Republicanism from another era, touting the virtues of bipartisanship and middle-of-the-road solutions.
He has lately ruffled some feathers in his party by breaking with Bill Brady, the Republican nominee for governor, and calling for an income tax increase favored by Governor Patrick J. Quinn, the Democratic incumbent, to help close a budget deficit of $13 billion in the coming year.
Mr. Edgar cringes at Tea Party bombast and “Obama-is-a-socialist” denunciations. He does not listen to Rush Limbaugh. “People listen to this stuff over and over, and they think it’s all true,” he said. “And they get very angry.”
For his moderate views, Mr. Edgar draws plenty of scorn from the right wing of his party. He supports abortion rights and is an advocate of helping illegal immigrants gain legal status. Jim Leahy, who writes for the conservative Chicago Daily Observer, recently implored: “Please go away Mr. Edgar.”
But if the Republicans are going to capture the governor’s office, some political experts say, they might be smart to ask Mr. Edgar for advice. In contrast to recent state Republican candidates, Mr. Edgar appealed to moderates in Chicago and the suburbs and won plenty of their votes.
When he became governor in 1991, Mr. Edgar inherited a budget deficit of about $2 billion. He raised taxes, cut spending and ultimately left the state with a surplus. In primaries in 1990 and 1994, Mr. Edgar faced challenges from conservatives. When he left office in 1999, he enjoyed approval ratings of some 60 percent. Since his retirement from politics, national party officials have urged him to run for office, especially the United States Senate, on more than one occasion.
For those Republicans who insist on running hard to the right in Illinois, Mr. Edgar suggests they do the math: Without making significant inroads in the Chicago region, where perhaps 70 percent of the votes in the state will be cast, it is difficult to imagine a Republican winning statewide.
Paul M. Green, a political analyst at Roosevelt University, notes that Mr. Edgar is one of the moderates who have been derided by some conservatives as “Rinos” — Republicans in name only. Mr. Green has his own moniker for the critics. “I call them “Raws” — Republicans against winning,” he said. “They can call Jim Edgar whatever they want. But he also has to be called a winner.”
Illinois Republicans hold no statewide offices. Democratic winning margins in Chicago have grown larger as the Republican Party has grown more conservative. In the suburbs, meanwhile, Republicans have lost Congressional offices in traditional strongholds, like DuPage County, where Melissa Bean triumphed. Republicans even lost the far west suburban district long represented by J. Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, to a Democrat, Bill Foster.
Over a breakfast of croissants and tea at the Peninsula Hotel before addressing the students, Mr. Edgar lamented the party’s drift to the right. “Most people are somewhere in the center on things,” he said. “That’s where the votes are.”
He offered tepid support for Mr. Brady in the governor’s race. “I’ll vote for Brady,” he said, “unless something happens.”
He gave Mr. Quinn points for trying to do the right thing on taxes. “I used to think he was a phony,” Mr. Edgar said. “I don’t think so anymore. I think he’s sincere. I just don’t agree with him on everything.”
In the primary, Mr. Edgar supported State Senator Kirk Dillard, Republican of Hinsdale, his former chief of staff. He said he would not be active in the governor’s race, in part because his university job calls for him to maintain some distance from politics.
He said he does intend to make campaign stops for Mark Kirk, the Republican Senate candidate. He said he was obligated to the candidate, “Because I was the one who talked him into running.” He lauded Mr. Kirk as the sort of Republican moderate who could win in Illinois by drawing Democratic votes.
Mr. Edgar’s own willingness to cross party lines and get along with Democrats goes back to his early childhood in his hometown of Charleston. Mr. Edgar said he became involved in politics as a 6-year-old in 1952 during a mock election at school. In the contest between Adlai Stevenson, a Democrat, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, he said he chose Eisenhower, the war hero. When he went home to tell his parents about his choice, he said there were some raised eyebrows. They were Democrats.
“From that day on,” he said, “I was known in the family as ‘The Republican.’ ”
A version of this article appeared in print on May 30, 2010, on page A21B of the National edition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)