Legislating Sanctuary Racism In Illinois

Written by Jesus Alaniz on . Posted in Guest Articles

Letter to the Editor, 

HB0426, a humane act proposed by Springfield, IL politicians Emanuel Welch, Ann Williams, Elizabeth Hernandez, Kathleen Willis, Gregory Harris, Thaddeus Jones, Silvana Tabares, Kelly Cassidy and Theresa Mah. As a Latino I’m offended that politicians use my race, heritage and my people for political gain and to shame Anglos and other Americans who oppose their bills into silence.  I have nothing but the utmost contempt for these nine malefactors’ attempt to turn American against American.  May God forgive them, for I cannot.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the consequences of making Chicago and Illinois a sanctuary state are many.

There are many laws an illegal must break in order to succeed in the United States; among them, have an identity card and a social security number.  On August 30, 2016, Washington Times reporter Stephen Dinan reported that the IRS had discovered that illegals had stolen more than 1 million social security numbers and despite five years of trying to remedy the problem they never bothered to tell the taxpayers.  

A Safe Smart Living article citing various sources stated that in 2014, more than 1 billion records containing personally identifiable information were leaked.  Medical identity theft is on the rise with 500,000 victims in 2014 alone.  In 2014, $5.8 billion was given to identity thieves from the IRS due to fraudulent returns.  The number one consumer complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2014 was identity theft.  It has ranked 1st place for 15 years running.  Children are susceptible to identity theft because they’re under 18 so their credit is not being monitored.  It is estimated that 19 people become victims of identity theft every minute and the average victim can expect to spend $500 dollars and 30 hours on average resolving each identity theft crime.

Friedrich August von Hayek, a Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences noted, “The history of government management of money has, except for a few short happy periods, been one of incessant fraud and deception” and such is this act, “HB0426.”  On Feb 2, 2017 Forbes reported that taxpayers are doling out $27 billion to sanctuary cities with Chicago being one of the top three recipients.  “Coincidentally” all of the bill’s sponsors are from or nearby Chicago.  This shameless & racist bill is designed to make IL Gov. Rauner look bad and to abscond taxpayer money through a “legislative process”.

--Jesus Alaniz

Add a comment

President Successful...

Written by Lee Ann on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s Note:  I have several friends on Facebook who are GSM’s, all of whom are just amazing women. One of them, Lee Ann, posted the following message by a friend of hers

Lee Ann:  A dear friend who is an Immigrant, and she wanted me to put an emphasis on "Legal," would like me to share this with everyone.

Please take a moment to read.  Everyone has their views and I respect others posts, please respect mine.

Her Friend:  To all “Never TRUMPers:”  I am a legal immigrant who came into this country the legal way.  I never cared for Donald Trump and I thought he was very shallow, but that's not the case at all!

Have you ever read his book “The Art Of The Deal..?”

I always saw him as a very brassie arrogant man.  Now I see that he's very focused on his assignment..! When he announced he was running for the Presidency I decided to research his views on things.  The more I found out about him the more I started changing my opinion.

My thoughts about him were, “we have a country that's messed up and a successful businessman wanting to make things right again.”  I knew that he would surround himself with the right people to do the job right. He was never a 'carpenter' but he built the most wonderful buildings in the world and completed many projects under budget and on time, just to mention a few of his abilities that are very important in politics.

The more the globalists and the mainstream media (which is under the globalist payroll) attacked him, the more I liked him and what he represents.

All the bold statements that he has made during his campaign have been true..! I have done my homework..!

He's not politically correct, he's just correct.  The point comes across loud and clear and the American public stood by him. The more he was attacked the higher his numbers went.  The globalists tried to kill his campaign and even today they're trying to kill the President of the United States.

Their plan is, they remain on top and the rest of the public, their slaves..!  They'll use any measure to secure this..!  He stood flat on his feet and said, “Not in my country you will not..!”

To most of us it looked like he was on a suicide path. It takes a very courageous man to do this..!  Regardless of what the mainstream media portrays him as, he has done more in three weeks for this country than any other President before him..!

Speaking about progress, he's not being given any choice but to stand firm on his agenda and keep on getting this country out of trouble..!  This is no time for political correctness..!

It's time to fix the country..!

Add a comment

Schumer Drowns His Own Words In Crocodile Tears

Written by Dawn Ellen on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s Note:  From time to time, I get wind of something written by my friend Dawn Ellen and she is gracious enough to allow me to publish it on these pages.  

Like too few other private citizen activists who are doing their part to expose those who would continue to ruin this great nation, Dawn doesn’t mince words and says exactly what she and many others are thinking. Her brief open letter below is directed at Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck, “Crocodile Tears” Schumer in response to his shameful display when discussing President Trump’s EO temporarily banning refugees from seven specific countries.  The recent words of this man are all the more shameful given that he essentially said the same thing back in 2015.

I could not agree with Dawn or President Trump more.

Dawn Ellen:

Dear Senator Schumer,

Where were your tears when Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were murdered by Islamic terrorists in the name of ‘allah’?

Where were your tears, after 14 people were slaughtered in San Bernardino in the name of ‘allah’?

Where were your tears after the slaying of 49 people at the Pulse Club in Orlando in the name of ‘allah’?

Where were your tears, when ISIS crucified, tortured, drowned burned, hung, raped and buried alive Christian men, women and children in the name of ‘allah’?

Your tears are politically convenient. How odd that you ‘wept’ because some Moslems were merely detained for hours. It’s not as if they were tortured, raped or murdered. It seems your tears fail to flow for those who have suffered horrible torture and death in the name of ‘allah’. Stop faking anguish and heartache for mere inconvenience and try mustering up some genuine love, concern and tears for the brutal slaughter of hundreds of millions of Christians, Jews and people of other faiths for ‘allah’s’ sake.

For me personally, I found your ‘faux tears’ to be quite offensive. You sir, should be ashamed.

Add a comment

"n Korea" A Real And Imminent Threat

Written by Douglas Nickelson on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s Note:  This is not a work of fiction.  Rather it is the well developed opinion of a retired officer of the United States Army.  I have known Colonel Nickelson for a good number of years and have no problem vouching for his integrity.  I listed his credentials ahead of his synopsis so the reader can see that they are indeed reading from a qualified writer, and his list of citations and sources is at the end.  It is not short, but it is well worth the read.  I hope and pray he is mistaken.

"Lieutenant Colonel Nickelson retired from the United States Army after 23+ years of enlisted service rising to the senior non-commissioned officer ranks, and then completing another 18+ years as an officer with extensive experience in Northeast Asia. Among his assignments, he was a Plans and Policies Officer for a major Theater Command in Northeast Asia. He is a graduate of the United States Army's Command & General Staff Officer College."

n Korea’s Threatened Launch for January 8, 2017

Author: Douglas H. Nickelson, LTC, USA, RET

Date: January 7, 2017

Disclaimer(s)-

This article uses the name “n Korea” as a long-held practice by this writer when referring to north Korea. This writer sees n Korea more as a rogue, dictatorial state than a civilized nation. This diversion in naming is not the view of anyone except the author. 

This article highlights facts and analyses considering a possible land based launch of an ICBM from n Korea on or about January 8, 2017, except where modest references to other possibilities are offered.

This article is prepared without the benefit of full and proper editorial review in anticipation of the 1-8-2017 possible launch. 

This article was prepared in its entirety in the early hours of January 7, 2017. 

The Threat as Reported By The Media-

Summarized, in a New Year’s Day pronouncement, North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un “warned” the world that nKorea “is on the verge of launching its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) – a missile capable of both carrying a nuclear warhead and reaching the United States.” 

Another Reality-

Though nKorea has purported to the world that it has tested missiles, before, capable of reaching intercontinental status, none have thus far been fired. It would appear nKorea has launched more failures than successes, except in a few cases, and mostly rocket launches to place satellites into orbit.  Though there are independent sources which assert or document the assertion by others that nKorea has used the publicized launching of satellites as a disguise for testing or attempting to test its ballistic missile efforts going back to its tests of Nodong, and Taepo Dong missile tests.   

Seeing the Battlespace/Seeing The Threat-

We military planners talk about seeing the battlespace; we do so as an admonition to preparing to identify threats, whether in terms of the information, cyber or geographical worlds to name a few. Seeing is just part of what Noel Hendrickson, Ph.D, wrote of when his presentation of a paper in 2009 circulated among senior army officers, and then to field grade officers such as myself. In his paper, Dr. Hendrickson led us as readers to employ a unique method of thinking referred to as counterfactual reasoning. Among the teachings, and one of the deep seeded elements is our need to overcome the tendency to “jump to conclusions”. Thus, we need to first see ourselves and how we arrive at conclusions then we can proceed to “seeing” the battlespace or the world around us with far greater clarity. 

Assuming for the moment that n Korea did or does have an intercontinental threat, here are some facts known or deduced on sound information concerning intercontinental ballistic missiles of the type(s) n Korea is believed to have. To discuss intercontinental capability missiles is to ignore, for the time being, Nodong, Musudan, Hwasong 5 & 6, as these though having range, do not, by themselves have range enough to reach outside of nKorea’s closest territorial neightbors, i.e. S Korea, Japan and parts of China, and Taiwan, possibly.  Of interest to this writing then is or are those capable of supposedly reaching intercontinental status from a land-based firing from n Korea. This leaves the Taepo Dong 1 & 2, and it’s far more likely this is reduced to the Taepo Dong 2 because it has a range believed to be capable of achieving 5-6000 kilometers. That would get it, theoretically, to only Hawaii or Alaska. One writer, Phillip Maxon, writing on or for something akin to a blog named ‘38 North’ asserts in 2011 that the Taepo Dong 2 if its payload were lightened, it could reach anywhere in the U.S.. No other source found makes or reaches that same conclusion thus its offered in the main body here as alternative thoughts examined. 

Moving on to the time dimension for intercontinental flight, as an aspect of shaping the threat singularly focused here, I checked several sources and decided on one more reputable than all others. Using known U.S. ballistic missile details as a proxy, and then borrowing from the selected source, I offer that a speed of 550 mph or 880 kph (kilometers per hour) is a reasonable assumption to apply to n Korea’s current state of technological advancement.  This leads to a rather simple calculation, even when range to target times are adjusted for a missile being able to achieve higher speeds at higher altitudes, that a n Korean missile would or could reach Alaska, the far closer objective of Hawaii and Alaska, in about 5 hours and 22 minutes to use a conservative estimate.  It’s far more likely that gauging n Korea’s missile speed capability of late, at least for the few successful launches, the time to Alaska’s outer banks is nearer 6 hours and 22 minutes. So then I wondered, of our ability to defend and ability to defend within the time parameters. Which moves me to the next line of reasoning, and that is what are our defenses and how are they arrayed? 

The Defense(s)-

Allow me to lead off by saying, I don’t have superior knowledge in this matter. Everyone has the same access to the source or sources I will use, any and all are open sources, anyone can access it or them. The only edge I might have, and it’s a personal one, is that there are sources, and there are sources I trust.

In major ways, the U.S. ballistic missile defense system appears in line with the strategic planning concepts offered decades ago in a publicized, and online download readily accessible RAND study on planning ballistic missile defenses arrayed in depth. 

The U.S. National Missile Defense (NMD) System, which is a set of systems within a major system, though one shouldn’t confuse the systems within as sub-systems because they may be used in mutually exclusive actions. The overall system is planned and equipped in an array from strategic, theater, to tactical levels. For purposes of this piece, I am including sources reviewed but not necessarily specifically cited in Addendum 1 on some of the components of the NMD.

Currently, and GlobalSecurities provides much needed detail on these and each of the following but, the components of the NMD System include:

Ground-based interceptor missiles

•Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System

•Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense

•Airborne systems

•Shorter-range anti-ballistic missiles

•Multilateral and international participation

So, what then is a likely response scenario in the event of a successful n Korean launch, where NMD controllers assert the launch to be a ballistic missile and not a rocket intended to set in orbit a satellite? For the sake of brevity, I’ll jump immediately to a published interview between ABC News and RADM Timothy Keating, then Commander of the Pacific Command (2007-2010), and formerly Commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and United States Northern Command (2004-2007).

Quoting in part from that interview, RADM Keating said and his thoughts, which seem plausible as still highly likely since publicly we know of little change in NMD application, were presented as: 

Keating said that “the military is ready to respond with at least five different systems: destroyer, Aegis cruiser, radar, space-based system and ground-based interceptor. All of these components work in conjunction with one another to protect against any missile threat.” 

Will Defense Fail Or Succeed-

It’s a legitimate question. The truth, well it remains to be seen but, it’s highly unlikely that a land based launch from n Korea aimed at any part of the U.S. will succeed. As noted above [Shaping the Threat] the response time afforded by such a launch is the critical and valuable part for the U.S. in all of this. There is sufficient time to ascertain and respond by a variety of means, though there are sources which assert the contrary. In fact, there are far too many in support of and in opposition to my opinion to get too deeply into. What is key in each of the opposing sources comes down to a failure of a single component at a given time in history, and not the overall system of systems. What I read of failures or gaps, appears to be that in subsequent actions such failures were resolved to root cause, and those causes have been corrected over time. More importantly, in 2015, after some necessary budget cutting measures, the Obama Administration made needed cuts to the NMD program inherently citing the program exceeded the needs of NMD or component additions to the system of systems didn’t prove out for effectiveness or cost benefit, though some lawmakers argued to the contrary. I prefer to believe he [President Obama] acted on the best information and analyses available from his staff and, that the cuts made identified “overages” in our system of systems to meet and destroy any attempt at another actor, state or individual, attacking any part of the U.S. by means of a n Korean land launch from the peninsula. Point being, I just can’t believe the President would leave this country vulnerable. But only a live launch, fired in anger will give us all the answer we need. 

Other Actors-

Of consequence, two actors are all that pose cause for a pause. Russia and China. Of these two, it really comes down to China. Russia has long lacked the leverage over n Korea, compared to China. And given recent U.S. sanctions, it really doesn’t seem likely Russia would or will risk military involvement in the moments after a U.S. interception of a n Korean missile. Russia, by all appearances in the world scene, appears to be more interested in returning more to cold war days with emphasis on cyberwar. Most will quickly bring to mind the recent matters related to among other things, assertions as to the depth and breadth of Russia’s involvement in cyberwarfare in the American political arena. But what most may have forgotten, and what U.S. information experts and analysts appear more and still interested in is the quantity and quality of information and intelligence Russia gained from Eric Snowden. ABC reported U.S. Intel Heads take the position that Snowden did profound damage to the U.S. based on analyses and assessments that both China and Russia hacked into Snowden’s information files. In the ABC report, cited here, National Intelligence Director insisted before a Senate committee that not only were U.S. collection efforts compromised but also some of our closest allies. The point being, Russia is ruled by an otherwise career operative for the committee for state security, known worldwide as the KGB. He is and was trained and developed in covert matters. It is unlikely such a person would all the sudden prefer being thrust into publicly overt actions, short of instigating or reacting to a direct threat on Russia. He is more likely to watch, and wait on matters related to n Korea. 

China is a bit different. China is unlikely as well to risk too much for the sake of its ill-mannered nephew. But there’s something more at interest in their decision making in the matter of any sort of response to an American interception of a n Korean missile, armed or not. There are several reasons I believe China is less likely to initiate a response strike or military action in this matter. I believe there are two major factors, if the two can actually be separated, why there is likely to be a reasoned response, and far more likely a diplomatic disapproval of any U.S. action to intercept and destroy a n Korean missile, for any reason. These two are energy and economics, the Big E’s. Concerning energy, we’re both dependents in this matter for the most part although Russia does have some energy reserves that I’ve anecdotally heard that the cost of extraction is too high given the current prices in the energy markets. Again this is anecdotal, and for the purposes of this paper highly unlikely anyway to have a bearing on a Chinese response of interest to the U.S. considering n Korea for the known part does not have energy reserves to speak of such that China would rear up and come to n Korea’s aid. So that leaves economics. From n Korea to China the equation is all China giving and n Korea receiving. n Korea is a drain on Chinese wealth. Even China has shown in recent months to begin what is an obvious reduction in aid to n Korea. From June to July, 2016, alone China’s exports to n Korea dropped to approximately US$193 million. This is from a group called the North Korean Economy Watch, where in the same article on the July net value the report describes this as a nearly 28% drop in the month. Granted they cite they’re quoting from the Korea Herald.  Now to keep in mind the actor relationship in the matter is the U.S.-China or China-U.S. one depending on how you prefer to look at it.

Of importance to this matter is the entanglement of U.S. and Chinese interests. I limited my examination to the Big E’s, I guess I should admit that the economics piece has two sub factors, Chinese investment in U.S. economic markets, with our environment not being a distant second to stocks and bonds. Working backwards, the Chinese government has a large holding of U.S. treasuries. The one figure I found most consistently of late is that the U.S. Debt to the Chinese is approximately US$1.115 trillion as of the end of October, 2016.  And the environment matter, I’ll call it a Small-e, with Big E consequences. China, for whatever reasons of its own, has found it beneficial to collaborate with the U.S. in the matter of farming. Now that appears to be limited to the U.S. doing the farming and exporting of food to China. The best I can quantify this is to look at even broader measure of imports and exports between the U.S. and China, where food is a factor but not the largest. One has to dig into the details of the U.S. Census Report on the 2016 Trade Report on the U.S. and China. Here’s the bottomline: China stands to lose far more by losing us as a trade partner. The U.S. imports far more than we export to China. The trade imbalance for 2016, 2015 and 2014 were US$319.2 billion, US$367.2 billion and US$344.8 billion, respectively. Unless the U.S. made a direct strike on n Korea soil in response to a missile launch, I just don’t see China doing anything more than using their position at the U.N. to file a formal complaint on behalf of n Korea.

Wrap up-

A launch from n Korea over the Pacific Ocean, deemed threatening by U.S. and U.S. allies, will be met with sudden and destructive response before any such missile or rocket is afforded a chance to do harm to the U.S.. Certainly a launch with a trajectory to the south and remaining on the peninsula might have a different result if theater level strategic or tactical defenses are slow for whatever reason in engaging but, the premise all along for this paper has been an intercontinental launch, and it is unlikely to reach mainland United States or Hawaii before being intercepted by any of five possible defense systems. And for a single, saber-rattling incident that the U.S. and China have come to know and expect from China’s ill-mannered nephew, U.S. – China relations are so entangled economically that it is highly unlikely China would mount an immediate counter-fire or armed response of any sort where no real harm is done except to destroy a n Korean missile or rocket. A U.N. measure sanctioning the U.S. for unilateral action, now that’s a different story. The story being the world’s perception of the decaying value of the United Nations.  

Addendum 1- National Defense System “Components” List of Related Sources

1."Missile Defense: Next Steps for the USA's GMD". Defense Industry Daily. 1 June 2015.

2.United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Overviewaccessdate=2015-05-08

3.New missile defences in Europe:Shooting down a plan, Economist, 24 September 2009.

4.RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense), spacewar.com.

5.NY Times article, 9/18/09.

6.Russia's Putin praises Obama's missile defense decision, LA Times, 9/19/09.

7.No missile defense in Eastern Europe, foreignpolicy.com, 9/17/09.

8.Obama sharply alters missile defense plans By William H. McMichael, 19 Sep 2009, navytimes.com.

9.Article on SM-3 missile system, strategypage.com, 10/4/09.

10."MDA announces next 6 BMD ships", Navy Times, 12 November 2009.

11."MDA - Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense". mda.mil.

12."Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense". Missile Defense Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense. 

13.BMD Strategies: Multilayered Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Part 2 and 3, by Daniel Goure, Arlington,         Va., spacewar.com, 21 April 2009.

In a January 1, 2017 New York Times article, Asia-Pacific writer Choe Sang-Hun describes nKorea’s latest threat announcement.

Wikipedia does what seems consistent with most sources in detailing a timeline of launches by type, and annotated for success or failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_tests. Retrieved 1/4/2017 from the world wide web.

See BBC News Asia, February 7, 2016, “North Korea’s Missile Programme”. A detailed chronology of nKorea’s tactical and strategic weapons programs, and open source facts related to rocket and missile launches.

CNNs Euan McCurdy and Paula Hancocks write in an April 29, 2016 article, “North Korea Launches Two Mid-Range Missiles, Both Tests Fail”, ‘…north Korea insists launch is to put satellite in orbit’.

Personal copy of paper available from this writer; Dr. Hendrickson’s 2009 paper on “Counterfactual Reasoning A Basic Guide for Analysts, Strategists and Decision Makers” available upon request in portable document format (PDF).

See end note iii., BBC News, Key North Korea Missiles graphic.

In the June 1st, 2013 issue of the Economist, the article’s author or authors, venture the conclusion that US ballistic missile speeds are of the range shown. See “Speed Is The New Stealth”.

Personal calculations based on a range of 5100 kilometers at speeds of 800 and 990 kph.

RAND authors David Gompart and Jeffrey Isaacson layout, for the National Defense Institute, an adaptive approach to Planning A Ballistic Defense System of Systems.

ABC News (electronic), Interview of RADM Keating by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in a February 26, 2009 piece entitled “U.S. Ready To Respond To North Korean Missile”.

Congressional Record, July 18, 2015. Congressional arguments appear focused on the items to cut or reduce spending on to achieve a $1.7 billion cut in defense spending, of which certain aspects of missile defense were included.

ABC News authors James Meek, Luis Martinez, and Alexander Mallin, in a January 29, 2014 story “Edward Snowden did ‘Profound Damage’ to U.S. Security’”, reporting on National Intelligence Director Clapper’s testimony before a Senate hearing committee. Director Clapper implied that Russia and China either were voluntarily provided Snowden information, by Snowden, or that information collected and stolen by Snowden was hacked and retrieved by both Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies.

August 25, 2016, Korea Herald, “China-North Korea trade drops, on sanctions and lack of foreign currency”.

December 22, 2016, Kimberly Amadeo, thebalance.com, “U.S. Debt to China: How Much Does It Own?”. . Retrieved January 7, 2017 from the world wide web. 

Add a comment

Trump, The White Non-Supremacist PEOTUS

Written by Sybele Capezzutti on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher's Note:  It is always a blessing to post something written by Sybele.  As always, she nailed the subject.

Sybele Capezzutti:  So the media is determined to make sure that a great portion of the population continues to buy into the idea that we've elected a white supremacist as our next President and everyone who voted for him must be a racist, misogynist, xenophobe; while if you know me and many others who voted for him, that couldn't be farthest from the truth!

Why would that be?  Could it be that this is how they will ensure that at least half the Country will never even open up to a conversation about the subject?

And why would they want that kind of animosity?  Could it be that this is how the globalists can keep some control in order to keep promoting their agenda?

Again, if you know me, then you know that there isn't a shred of hatred in my heart and that I'm someone who researches to a fault. 

You also know I don't vote Republican or Democrat, I vote against policies that I know from experience will not end well for the common people and for policies that will ensure some freedom and prosperity....that means I also don't vote for the person because people are flawed and putting your hopes of a better future exclusively into someone's hands is dangerous.

That reminds me that as far as we know there was only one human being known to us without flaws: Jesus.

In His name people have killed, in His name people have scammed naive followers out of their money, in His name people have taught prejudice. 

How could that be?  There is evil in this World and the best way to get away with evil is to infiltrate that which is good. 

By now you're thinking...where is she going with this?  I was watching a video of this "alt-right" group, which sounded very much like Nazis to me, hailing for Trump.  Absolutely disgusting!

Well, I know that the Trump I've listened to did not promote that kind of thinking but is getting credit for it because the media is making sure he does so they can label him and every single person who voted for him a white supremacist.

It doesn't matter that Blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, women, rich and poor voted for him, one group of lunatics is all we hear about in the news.

This disgusting group has infiltrated something good to promote their hatred, makes me wonder how they started, why and by whom....

Seems like I have some research to do.

Add a comment