And the "Jackass of the Year" Award Goes To...

The 82nd and current Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder. If ever there was a man truly deserving of the "Jackass of the Year" award, he most certainly is it. He's also proof that when it comes to picking Cabinet members, The Great Pretender doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

So just what did Holder do to deserve this high honor? Well, to be honest, his involvement in the failed operation known as "Fast and Furious" which resulted in the illegal sales of weapons to a Mexican drug cartel which then used some of the weapons to kill a Federal agent more than qualifies him. Then you put on top of that his refusal to obey the law regarding subpoenas of records for a Congressional inquiry - after all, he IS the Attorney General, the top law enforcement official in the whole nation, right? So you'd think he'd know that when you get served with a subpoena you don't have the option of NOT complying with it. But Holder must think he's above the law, because he's about to get sanctioned by Congress for failing to comply with the latest subpoena issued to him for his records in the "Fast and Furious" investigation.

Then there's his pitiful and downright disgraceful performance when he was called to testify before a Congressional hearing on the "F&F" debacle, the one in which he refused to acknowledge the fact that he was being placed under oath. I guess his razor-sharp legal mind thought that if you just don't agree that you're under oath you can't be charged with perjury later on. Simple, huh? He must think so - but fortunately for the rest of us, that's not the way it is.

Then there's the class act of him losing his temper during those hearings, showing us just what a loser he really is. Yeah, a real class act, this one - if you can't be right, be mad and maybe those awful, mean and nasty Congressmen will just leave you alone. That may have worked on the playground, Eric, but it won't work in Congress.

And now, to top it all off, just when you think he can't do or say anything worse or more stupid than he already has, he pops up and makes the following statement to the New York Times:

"This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American."

Yeah, that's right, Eric, those mean ol' white boys in Congress are only pickin' on you 'cuz you and your home boy Barack are black.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

If this statement had come from a black gang member I would have accepted it; I wouldn't have agreed with it, but I would have accepted it because that's what black gang members always say whenever they get busted. If this statement had come from a black drug dealer, same thing - I would have accepted it but not agreed with it for the same reasons.

But this statement didn't come from a gang member or a drug dealer. It came from the Attorney General of the United States, a supposedly intelligent and educated man, and this fact alone makes it the single most stupid, moronic, and incredibly unbelievable thing I've heard this year. It just blows me away that a man in his position of responsibility and authority would be stupid enough to utter such total nonsense and actually think that the American people are going to believe it and agree with him! This man's stupidity apparently knows no bounds. He is a total disgrace to his office and the nation, and I hope Congress throws the book at him.

If NObama had half a brain in his head he'd be pounding on Holder's office door, demanding that he tender his resignation immediately.

But then again, NObama appointed him to the job to begin with...so much for him having half a brain.

November 2012 can't get here fast enough.

IHC

Random Thoughts on a Friday Morning

There's been so much going on in the world and on the news lately that it's been kinda hard for me to nail one item down to talk about, so I decided to just hit all of them briefly instead of going into a dialogue about any single one of them. Yeah, I know, it's the lazy way out, but it's my blog so I can do what I want to!

Having said that, heeeeeeere we go!

So the US Congress has passed yet another "stopgap" funding bill to prevent the government from shutting down...AGAIN. Is it me, or are we not getting what we're paying for with our elected members of Congress? I mean, really, when is this largest collection of buffoons and asshats in the history of the United States gonna get the message that the budget needs to be fixed permanently instead of temporarily? The more I hear of this bunch of clowns and their antics in the great stinkhole known as Washington, DC the more I am in favor of two things: term limits and a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Of course, the term limits thing will never fly because Congress would have to approve it, and who would approve something that they knew would make them unemployed after a set period of time? So maybe that's why we need to kick ALL of them out and start over with a fresh bunch of Congressmen and Senators who have no ties to the banking industry or Wall Street or "big money" and therefore have no "deals" to protect, and who will therefore do what's right for the country instead of what's right for their party or themselves. And the "balanced budget" amendment just makes good sense, especially since our Congress has proven that they are incapable or unwilling (my money is on unwilling) to balance it themselves because they're too busy doing what's right for their party or protecting their secret deals with "big money." It's waaaaaaaaay past time for the people to speak up on this one.

And while I'm mentioning speaking up on this one, it sure would be nice to hear The Great Pretender tell ALL of Congress to get off their asses and fix the budget instead of just telling Republicans to stop being hard to get along with and do things the Demoncratic way. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I think that once a person is elected to the office of President of the United States he should stop being a Demoncrat or a Republican and start being the President. Party affiliation and loyalty needs to be left at the White House door, ya know? But of course our current "do nothing, say nothing, good for nothing" President won't do that. All he's doing is proving that he's by far a worse president than Jimmy "Mr. Peanut" Carter ever was, hands down.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick to death of seeing people and organizations cave in to the unrealistic whinings of tiny-minded, selfish, "it's all about me!" people who want to do nothing but complain and get their way. I'm speaking specifically about all of those people who are complaining about Nativity scenes being displayed on court house lawns and Air Force bases, and Christmas trees being displayed in the same place. Now before anyone starts to lecture me about the Constitution and what it says about the separation of church and state, I would suggest you go do some serious research on that because you're going to find out that the Constitution doesn't say what you think it does. Having said that, these crybabies who are choosing to portray themselves as "oppressed" and "repressed" because they have to be subjected to seeing a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn need to wake up and realize a couple of things: first, this nation was founded and the Constitution drafted on Christian beliefs, and second, Christians have the same right to display artifacts of their faith as you have to hang up a sign saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" because you don't believe in God or Jesus Christ. You're nothing special because you're a minority, and if you don't like the Christmas tree on the courthouse lawn, then either don't look at it or exercise your Constitutional right to pack your shit and move to another country.

And the same thing goes for the display of the Confederate Battle Flag. I personally don't give a tinker's damn if you don't like it for whatever reason; my guess is that unless you're a veteran of the Civil Rights era and had a personal experience with the Klan visiting you in the middle of the night, you're basing your dislike of the flag on the one-sided, bigoted, and largely inaccurate information you've received from such neutral sources as the NAACP or the ACLU. (Pardon me while I go throw up in my mouth.) Recently here in South Carolina a black college student caused a little bit of a ruckus because he did some research - REAL research - on the history of the flag and why it's displayed today, and he decided that all he'd been told before was wrong. He came to the educated (emphasis on the word "educated") decision that the flag was not a symbol of hate or racism, that the flag had been hijacked by the racist groups of the Civil Rights era, and that today the flag was mostly displayed as a symbol of heritage and pride in that heritage. He therefore chose to display one in his college dorm room, and the college went nuts. They told him to take it down, naturally, which he did - at first. Then he decided to stand his ground and put it back up, getting some news coverage in the mean time. The story was big news for all of two days, and now it's gone. I wonder how long the story would have stayed in the news if the NAACP was ranting and raving about the flag being displayed in his room? Do tell...in any event, to the college kid who did the research and came to his own conclusion, I say this: Good on ya!

And former New Jersey governor John Corzine is a crook, period. There are some of us who knew this all along, but now he's proven it. Case closed.

Then there's Eric Holder, the single worst US Attorney General in the history of our nation. Here's a man who is the head of the largest law enforcement agency in the nation, yet when he gets called in front of Congress to testify about a failed sting operation called "Fast and Furious," he fails to even acknowledge the fact that he's being placed under oath. I dare say that if we had a Republican president, Holder would have been out on his ass in about two minutes after this whole "Fast and Furious" thing broke. But we have a Demoncratic president, and the Demoncrats have proven to us before with the way they handled "Slick Willy" Clinton committing perjury while a sitting President that they're perfectly okay with their party members lying under oath and thereby committing a crime, so what else should we expect from Mr. Useless sitting in the Oval Office? All I can say is November 2012 is right around the corner, and thank God for that.

And speaking of November 2012, now that Herman Cain has dropped out of the running, it looks like my vote is going to be cast for Ron Paul. I did some serious research on all of the leading contenders, and found that I agree with him on all of the issues except one, that one being abortion, and that isn't enough of a "hot button" topic with me to keep me from voting for him. So unless he does something really stupid between now and then - like deciding to run for President knowing that you've just ended a 13-year long extramarital affair and then being stupid enough to think no one will find out about it - he's got my vote.

Coffee time.

IHC

It's Time to "Occupy" a JOB!

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about all of the "Occupy" protesters who are still sitting on their asses "trying to make a statement." I would think that by now, SOMEONE in those groups would have enough common sense to realize that they've made all of the "statement" that they're going to make, and that the only "statement" they're making now is that they'd rather cause trouble and make waves than go out and "occupy" a job. Considering that these protests have been going on now for more than two months, I'd say it's pretty apparent that most of the people involved in them are those who are just waiting for their free handout, for some of the "redistributed wealth" that NObama and his band of merry idiots keep talking about to come their way.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that ain't gonna happen. Not in an election year, for sure, and it damned sure ain't gonna happen once The Great Pretender is out on his skinny ass and a Conservative is back in the White House.

As I've said before, I'm all about free speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble. But when you start breaking laws concerning overnight camping in public parks, when you start constructing wooden buildings on public land which is also in violation of the law, and when you refuse a lawful order to disperse because you're breaking local laws concerning hours of operation of public parks, then you are no longer assembling in a "peaceable" manner and it's time for you to "occupy" a jail cell.

Unfortunately, the participants of the "Occupy" movement and the lunatic fringe of the Liberal movement don't see it that way. They think that the First Amendment gives them the right to do whatever they want while they are exercising their right to "free speech." Well, all I can say is that someone was asleep in American History 101 when they covered the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because also as I've said before, the First Amendment doesn't say that. No matter how hard you try to spin-doctor it, no matter how convoluted you make it, no matter what kind of twisted logic you may try to use, the bottom line is this: when you start breaking laws you stop being a protester and start being a criminal, and you have no protection under the First Amendment.

It's as simple as that.

IHC

My Reply to John B.

Before I get started, a little background: on the Facebook page for "Former Langley AFB Security Police" today there was a discussion about how the Air Force had changed the name of "Security Police" to "Security Forces," and had merged the two career fields, Law Enforcement and Security, into one. I stated my opinion that I thought both was a mistake, and also stated that the Air Force seemed to be getting away from the Law Enforcement mission at its bases, choosing instead to farm that mission out to the DoD Police. Nowhere in my post did I say anything negative about my Security counterparts or the DoD Police - at least, I didn't think I did.

Well, I'm not real sure what I said that would have offended anybody, but apparently I did because John B. got his panties in a knot about it, and at one point stated that the Law Enforcement troops always "whined like little babies" when they had to work Security. Before I had a chance to reply I guess the moderator of the page saw what was coming, because by the time I got home from work today the thread was gone.

Those of you who know me know that I absolutely must have my say, so here it is in an environment where no one but me can delete it.

To John B:

First, let me say that I, for one, always found the old "Security vs. LE" thing to be incredibly childish, incredibly stupid, and a total waste of time; I also avoided getting involved in those conversations whenever I could because they always ended up with two or more people pissed off at each other, and that never accomplished anything.

I have always realized, even when I was a young airman in Law Enforcement, that each of the career fields within what used to be Security Police had its own unique set of challenges, and that each career field could be difficult in its own way. This was due in part to two of my roommates both being Security troops, so I heard about it first-hand every day; it also stemmed from the many, many, MANY times I got pulled from Law Enforcement duties to work Security because they were short manned for one reason or another. The longer I stayed in the Air Force the more I realized several things: One, the Security mission would always have priority over the Law Enforcement mission; two, whenever the Security side of the house was short-manned they would always pull from the Law Enforcement side to make up for the shortfall, and there was nothing you could do about it; three, whenever Law Enforcement was short-manned we would just have to suck it up and make due because getting additional manning from the Security side of the house was akin to finding the Holy Grail; and four, nothing was ever going to change 1 through 3. So it became an accepted fact of life among young Law Enforcement airmen that every now and then we'd have to put on our greens, pick up an M-16 instead of a .38, and go walk around a parked aircraft or stand on the Entry Control Point of a priority "A" aircraft rather than stand on the gate waving traffic or riding as a patrol rider on a base patrol. Basically, we were trading one shit duty for another, so in most cases it was pretty much a wash any way you looked at it.

You said that LE troops always "whined like little babies" whenever they got pulled for Security duty - well, look at it this way: when we enlisted we didn't enlist to be a Security troop. We didn't enlist to walk around a parked aircraft, or stand guard at the ECP of a priority aircraft, or walk a fence line in a priority aircraft parking area, or walk around the rope along the perimeter of the parking slot for a priority aircraft. We enlisted and trained to work Law Enforcement, because even something as mundane and boring as working a gate, writing visitor's passes, or doing building checks was a part of what we signed up for - it was, simply put, what we wanted and expected to do.

And to be honest, it wasn't anywhere near as boring as the duties of a young Security troop. I'll take standing out in the rain on the gate waving traffic over walking around a parking ramp in the rain any day, all day long, and twice on Sunday.

So sure, the LE troops would complain when they got yanked from LE duty to go work Security - and the seasoned, experienced Security leaders knew why, and knew how to deal with it. In the grand scheme of things it was nothing more than a minor inconvenience that would pass very quickly - like 8 hours later at shift change.

But in the 19 years I worked in Security Police, not once - not so much as a single time - did I ever hear a Security troop complain when he got assigned to work Law Enforcement, even if it meant standing out on the gate and waving traffic, which 9 times out of 10 it did.

Not once. I wonder why that is? You tell me.

You asked what duties LE troops performed during deployments, and then you answered your own question by saying they pulled "security" duties. Well, yes and no, mostly no, because when we deployed it was done not under the Law Enforcement mission, not under the Security mission, but under the Air Base Ground Defense mission. Security Police has always been and always will be the Air Force's infantry, and everyone - everyone - who joins the Air Force and goes into Security Police will go through Air Base Ground Defense training. I went through it, just like everyone else in my Law Enforcement class in 1975 did, and I'm pretty sure they still do. Once the group gets to where its going the mission will include the posting of sentries around the aircraft parking areas, to be sure, so in that small aspect they're performing security duties. But at the same time you'll have listening posts, observation posts, machine gun bunkers, and such that will be manned under the ABGD mission as well. But you'll also have a Law Enforcement mission if the base location calls for it, as we did in Saudi Arabia during Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. It was a small mission consisting of manning the main gate to the base and having a liaison NCO at the Saudi Police Headquarters, but we had one none the less.

So like I said, as for the security mission during a deployment, it's yes and no, but mostly no.

As for my comments about the DoD Police, sorry, but I just don't see where I said anything that anyone could in any way construe as being negative. All I said was that it seemed like the Air Force was turning its Law Enforcement mission over to them. Personally I think that's a terribly bad idea, not because the DoD cops aren't capable of it - they most certainly are - but because I don't think any civilian agency should have any responsibility for anything on a military installation. And that includes the farming out of CE duties to local construction companies as well.

Finally, you said that you didn't recall the Air Force ever trying to merge the two career fields before doing it in the early 1990s; well, they tried it once in 1976 and again in 1981, and it failed both times. I can't help it that you don't remember, but I most certainly do because I had just enlisted in 1975 and when I was told less than a year later that I may wind up being a Security troop, I was pissed because I had enlisted Guaranteed Job as a Law Enforcement specialist, and the last thing I wanted was to become a "ramp rat."

In closing, let me say this: personally, I always thought it was harder to be a good Security Flight Chief than a good Law Enforcement Flight Chief, because a Security Flight Chief had to deal with the constant bitching, griping, and complaining from all of the young Security troops about how boring their job was, about how much they hated it, and about how much they wished they'd enlisted as a Law Enforcement Specialist instead of a Security Specialist. The Security Flight Chief who could keep his flight organized, trained, motivated and ready on a constant basis was a thing of beauty to behold, and I always admired them.

Too bad you can't say the same about your former Law Enforcement counterparts.

And I think that just about wraps it all up.

IHC