The Groundtruth from a combat veteran, backed up by independent research and historical study. Information beneficial to the Troops. And a touch of objective politics, as it relates to the subjects at hand.
This site is unabashedly Pro-American and Pro-Military however none of the views expressed here are to be considered as endorsed, proposed, or supported by the Department of Defense or any other Agency, government, public, or private. http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/
SSgt Workman is featured in the Hall of Heroes and a book review on this from Marine Till Death that read it as it was written: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/12/shadow-of-the-sword-by-jeremiah-workman-w-john-bruning.html
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/12/ssgt-jeremiah-workman-navy-cross-usmc-iraq-marion-oh.html and links to prior articles.
This is the document that clearly authorizes what the Federal government is allowed to do, what authorities and responsibilities the separate entities of the Government have. It is what Our Troops swear to defend and what our politicians and judges have sworn to uphold:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As is pointed out within that article, the US Constitution is but four (4!!!) pages of simple language setting out what America is/will be, and what it is NOT. The foundations upon which a great nation was based seem to have been shaken to the core in recent years, as the current crop of politicians seem determined to over-reach the very clear limits placed upon them within that framework. Today, from where I sit, America is under attack by those very 'servants' of the people who - as noted above - swore to uphold the Constitution.
For decades, there has been one man in Tennessee politics that was so powerful, so well financed, that no one dared to challenge him. Sure, there were some sacrificial lambs that were put on the ballot, but not the kind that put up a fight or had a real chance. The former presidential candidate, former governor, and current Senator, Lamar Alexander, has long lost touch with the people of Tennessee.
When Veterans of Tennessee went to Washington in 2008, Alexander couldn't be bothered. They asked for an appointment with him. They stopped by his office. He just wasn't available for Veterans. Alexander has voted with the current Administration more than he has voted with the people of Tennessee.
In 2014, there is finally a choice. There is finally a real challenger to Alexander. There is finally a Tennessean unafraid of the massive war chests Alexander has accumulated. Joe Carr knows that it will take a lot to defeat the incumbent. It costs money to get the message out. The incumbent has won by 2-1 margins for decades, but that was when the voter had no other real choices.
It costs money to run a campaign, but money doesn't cast a vote. Regardless of what's in the campaign coffers, voters can get the message out, with tweets, FB comments, and letters to the editors. YouTube videos are a great way to reach voters turned off by TV attack ads. Keep it clean Joe! The people of Tennesse are more tired of the incumbent than the politicians realize.
Words may be cheap, but we know that Alexander's actions are not in support of Veterans. Joe Carr's position on Veterans stand in contrast to the actions of Alexander:
"Our veterans sacrifice so much for our country, and we must provide them the best healthcare and support we can possibly give them. We will never be able to repay them for their sacrifices, but that reality must not stop us from doing our best to care for them and their families." Joe Carr for Tennessee 2014
Joe Carr will not be a rubber stamp for Obama, Reid, and McConnell. He understands the need to reduce the deficit. He has helped keep Tennessee's budget balanced.
It is time that Alexander retire. It is time that we replace those politicians that have been in Washington for too long.
I am sorry, but let me be clear: What
you have done to our precious Fallen Heroes (and their families) of our
Military, has crossed MY 'red line'. For your betrayal of that most
sacred trust we all must hold with them, YOU are not fit to hold the
highest office in the land I know and love as America. You are also not
remotely qualified - or worthy - to have the privilege of being
Commander In Chief of one of the world's most dedicated armed forces:
the United States Military.
Not only are you unqualified to be the
President of the United States, you are also an out and out liar, and
our Military and their families now are left in no doubt how hollow your
words are.
In March 2009 you said, as part of another of your never-ending empty rhetoric diatribes:
"For their service and sacrifice, warm words
of thanks from a grateful nation are more than warranted, but they
aren't nearly enough. We also owe our veterans the care they were
promised and the benefits that they have earned. We have a sacred trust
with those who wear the uniform of the United States of America. It's a
commitment that begins at enlistment, and it must never end. But we know
that for too long, we've fallen short of meeting that commitment. Too
many wounded warriors go without the care that they need. Too many
veterans don't receive the support that they've earned. Too many who
once wore our nation's uniform now sleep in our nation's streets."
-President Barack Obama, March 19, 2009
Yes, I got that from *your own* White House site,
where you then go on to post "Guiding Principles. This under a huge
sign that says, in what must be irony, 'Due to Congress’s failure to
pass legislation to fund the government,
the information on this web site may not be up to date.
I suggest that your website is most
certainly NOT up to date, as your actions, and those of your
administration prove, time and again, that your flowery oratory has been
more than outpaced by your actions.
Not only
have you consistently showed America how unfit you are to be CinC,
because all the photo-ops and speechifying contradict what you have
DONE, but the rest of the world also has watched as Emperor Obama has
been shown for the empty suit you really are.
Since the shutdown started, the Executive Branch of government, i.e. the President, has ordered the closure of anything that might be painful to the public. Included in that was the erection of barricades to the War Memorials on the Mall, including the cemetary at Normandy, the Viet Nam Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, and the World War II Memorial. It has prevented the payments to the families of the Fallen. It is threatening to end payments to Veterans, for injuries incurred during their service to the Nation.
Last week, the first group of World War II Veterans encountered the original erection of barriers to their monument. The monument built with private donations, spearheaded by Senator Bob Dole, a decorated hero of WWII, who was injured during that war. Honor Flight and some members of Congress had called the White House, to ensure that these 80 and 90 year olds would be allowed to view their monument. The White House did not just say "no," but kept the barriers up. The 90 year old WWII Veterans "stormed" the barricades and accomplished their mission, anyway, with the escort of a few members of Congress.
A few days later, the barricades had been put back up, and this time wired together. Another group of Veterans was en route. This time, a group of bikers arrived ahead of the Veterans and disassembled the barricades.
While, it appears that the White House may have backed down from keeping WWII Veterans out of their memorial, it has re-doubled efforts at the Viet Nam memorial. Viet Nam Veterans are being forcibly removed from viewing their memorial.
Keep in mind, it costs more money to barricade these monuments, than to allow them to be open. There is no gate to man during normal operations. The Park Rangers that are being used as the implement will still be paid, whether they simply roam the grounds, or they are massed to assemble barricades. As far as I can determine, this is an unprecedented move, during ANY shutdown of the government. I find no record of Clinton, Bush, or Reagan ordering the expenditure of more money to close "The Mall" than to just allow it to continue without service. And to re-inforce the culpability of the Executive Branch (along with his enforcer, Harry Reid), the House has specifically passed legislation to keep "The Mall" and monuments open.
September 17th is Constitution Day. Public Law 108-447 establishes it as so, and that 17-23 September is Constitution Week, each year. It requires that every Federal Agency provide educational and training materials on the Constitution on September 17th, and that every educational institution that receives federal funding hold an educational program on this day, each year.
The Constitution was written on 4 pages in plain English. This is the document that solely authorizes what the Federal government is allowed to do, what authorities and responsibilities the individual entities of the Government have. It is what Our Troops swear to defend and what our politicians and judges have sworn to uphold:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
One can only hold their tongue for so long. After considerable head shaking I finally said, enough is enough and want to express my personal views here.
I cannot believe that it has been at least 8 years since Congress has done much of anything except bicker about how the other side of the aisle is being unreasonable and that "they" are the cause of the problem which has resulted in little effective legislation moving through Congress.
Heaven forbid that Congress should be called back into session early, have to stay late, miss a paid vacation day or forgoe a raise during these "tough times" that our country has been experiencing.
To hear some people (politicians in particular) talk, the military is rampant with sexual predators, protected by their Commanders. Numbers are thrown around about tens of thousands of victims and stories are told about victims too afraid to report the crimes. "One rape is too many," is not only a true statement, but also an unobtainable goal.
A number of the current crop of politicians are pushing to remove Commanders from a role in the prosecution of sexual predators within their ranks. To understand why that would be a terrible error, one must understand the role of NCO's and Commanders in the military. Military leaders are not just bosses and managers. They are not merely responsible for what happens at work. NCO's and Commanders instill discipline, enforce the difference of right and wrong, and in a very real sense are involved in every aspect of the lives of their Soldiers.
Commanders have authority to punish Troops, by taking time and pay and rank, for infractions as small as showing up a minute late to work. A Commander must not only lead, but also command. He must not only instill the confidence in his leadership to the point that his Troops will rush a machine gun nest when ordered, but be fair in punishments, promotions, and recognition of deeds, good and bad. Criminal behavior within his unit must be squashed.
My confidence that I can relate the role of a Commander in words, at the moment, and reasonably briefly, is weak. There is no civilian equivalent.
In my time in the military, I had good Commanders and bad, but not once did I have a Commander that I believed would protect a sexual predator. I had some that condoned or participated in the "reallocation of Army assets" from other units, but all condemned thievery within their own. And none demonstrated any tolerance for unlawfully taking assets that did not belong to the Military.
So, what are the facts concerning sex crimes in the Military? The fact is that rape and "wrongful sexual conduct" do occur, but that the incidence rate is no where near what the media hype insinuates, or even what they report. The media and politicians lump rape in with unwanted advances, call it all sexual assault. Then, they estimate that because there were 3,374 reports of sexual misconduct, there must be 26,000 total victims.
There were 140 allegations of rape (676 DoD wide including Reserves) reported involving an Army Soldier in 2012, out of a population of roughly 700,000 (Report includes Army Reserves and Title 10 National Guard Soldiers).
That's an incident rate of roughly 20 per 100,000, compared with Chicago's Criminal Sexual Assault rate of 50.4/100,000 in 2009. In 2010, there were 57,098 Forcible Rapes reported by the FBI in it's Uniformed Crime Report (not including Chicago) for cities covering a total population of 196,260,987 city dwellers, for an incident rate of 29 per 100,000. In short, there are 1/3rd fewer rapes reported in the Army than in the civilian population from which it comes. Sources: Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, Fiscal Year 2012, FBI Uniform Crime Report by State by City, 2010, State of Illinois Total Crime, 2005-2009.
This morning, I heard a politician state there were 26,000 incidents of sexual assault last year. Flat out, that is a made up number. The military documents every single report. There were a total of 3,374 allegations of sexual misconduct (including the 676 allegations of rape) made in FY 2012. Of those, 2,949 were reported to Military Authorities by Military victims. Volume 1 of the 2012 Report is 729 pages long, primarily because it includes a spreadsheet on each report, along with non-personal information on the defendants and victims, and disposition of each case, as well as breaking down the statistics in nearly every manner they can think of, including time of day, day of week, and age, rank, and sex of victims and perpetuators.
So, why is there such a large gap between politicians and actual reports? Well, someone comes along and decides that a certain percentage of victims report "unwanted sexual contact," and then multiplies the number of reports by the number of potential victims in the military. Some years they say it is 6% and sometimes they say it is 14% reported. But the report includes not only the 140 rapes in the Army, but every report of any type of sexual misconduct, and it is listed by politicians and media as "sexual assaults."
I will concentrate on the Army reports, because it's the biggest branch, with the highest reporting rate. The Army takes every report seriously. It makes sure that every Soldier knows that every report will be documented and investigated, unless the victim wants to keep it out of view.
The Army closed (unrestricted report) cases (page 185 involving 1320 Military victims and 1406 investigations in FY 2012 (Oct11 to Sep12). Of those allegations by 817 Military victims and against 749 Military defendents were substantiated. While many of these cases were from prior years, every case reported is investigated. Of the cases initiated in FY12, 783 of the victim's cases and 665 of the defendent's cases were also opened in FY12. There were only 379 cases pending as of year's end. There were 460 pre-FY12 investigations closed in FY12, with 62 cases from pre-FY12 pending. Of the cases closed, 206 of the victims were male and only 35 of the defendants were female.
There were also 227 "restricted reports" filed, of which 53 were later converted to unrestricted reports. And "Restricted Reports" are an important part of the victim advocacy of the military. It allows the victim to file a report, get needed help, and have evidence collected, without any of the information going to the command. Everything remains completely confidential, unless and until, the victim decides otherwise. If the victim is making an allegation against a member of the Chain of Command, or doesn't know who the perpetuator was, or simply fears retaliation, this is a method to get help and initiate the process of evidence. Thirteen of the restricted reports were by Soldiers who were reporting a pre-Military incident. Additionally 3 unrestricted reports were pre-military incidents. Thirty-four of the cases did not involve a Soldier at all (victim or defendant).
An "Unrestricted Report" is necessary to actually prosecute. If a victim decides to "unrestrict" a previously restricted report, the Chain of Command is notified, actions are taken to protect the victim, and the case moves forward, based on the evidence previously collected and restricted. Only California makes it illegal for a victim to make a restricted report.
Of the unrestricted reports, 204 involved an unknown or civilian perpetuator against a Military victim. A third of all cases occured off-post. Making collection of evidence more difficult, nearly 2/3rds were not reported within 3 days and 101 reports were made more than a year following the alleged incident. There were 245 reports made in FY12, of incidents that allegedly occured prior to that year.
Of the completed investigations, 772 of 941 defendants were in the Military while 142 were outside of military jurisdiction. Seventy were not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence or because the victim declined to participate in the prosecution. Four hundred ten were punished by the command, including 228 Courts Martial, while 107 had cases pending as of the report. In all, 203 "victims" were found to have filed "unfounded" allegations, 80% of which were filed by soldiers.
Of 424 Courts Martial, 134 cases were not yet completed, 57 cases were dismissed (with 13 defendants getting punished by their commander anyway), 57 defendants were put out of the military in lieu of a court-martial, 36 were acquitted and 153 were convicted. Outside of courts-martial 117 were punished directly by their Commanders (UCMJ). Another 60 were thrown out of the military and 57 received other Administrative Actions. Additionally 92 defendants investigated for a sexual offense were punished for another reason, or discharged for another reason.
Case 1 through 36(Army) were for "Abusive Sexual Contact." Case 36 on page 213 involved a male and female PFC (E3). She alleged that he touched her buttocks with a wooden stick. He was reduced to PVT/E1, fined $745 for two months ($1490 total) and given 45 days restriction and 45 days extra duty.
Case 47 through 275 in the Army were for "Aggravated Sexual Assault" in the Army. Case 275 is on page 230 of the report. It involved a male and a female SGT(E5). She alleged that he forced her to perform oral sex on a flight from Kuwait. Though there was insufficient evidence to prosecute on aggravated sexual assault, he was reduced to SPC(E4) for "indecent acts."
Case 44 and 282 through 336 was the charge of "Aggravated Sexual Contact." Case 336 on page 234 is the last of those charges. It involved an Army E3 male and a civilian female. She alleged that after consensual sexual foreplay she passed out from alcohol and woke up with him licking her anus. Though there was insufficient evidence to support charges of sexual assault, his Commander charged him with indecent acts/adultery, reduced him to E1, "fined" him $745 for 2 months (total $1490), restricted him to post (or the barracks) for 45 days, and gave him extra duty for 45 days.
Case 337 through 390 were for "Forcible Sodomy." Case 337 on page 235 involves a male Major (O4) and his civilian girlfriend. She alleged that he committed sodomy, assault, and patronizing a prostitute. She then wrote a letter asking the military not to prosecute him, and refused to participate in the Civilian prosecution. He received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, effectively ending his military career.
Case 390 involved a male SGT (E5) and multiple females who alleged that the defendent and a friend forced them to perform oral sex at a barracks room party. Despite a lack of evidence to prosecute the charge, he was punished for "indecent acts," reduced to E1, "fined" $1131 for two months (total $2262), and given 45 days restriction and 45 day extra duty. Case 587 appears to be the same case, with a different victim, and a charge of rape.
Case 391 was an allegation of indecent assault occuring prior to 2008 in Iraq.
Case 392 through 587 are allegations of rape. Case 392 involves a male E4 and multiple females, overseas. She alleges that she went to a party with the defendent, got drunk, blacked out, and awoke naked, with him using a sex toy to penetrate her. He was being tried at a General Court Martial at the time of the report (docket 20 December 2012).
Case 588 and 589 are allegations of "Sexual Assault." Case 588 involves a male PFC (E3) and female PVT (E2). She alleges that while engaging in consensual sex, she told him to stop, and he didn't. He is being court-martialed.
Cases 590 through 862 are allegations of "Wrongful Sexual Contact." Case 590 involved a male SGT (E5) and female civilian. She alleges that after she got drunk and passed out, she woke up to him rubbing her inner thigh. He was convicted, sentenced to 120 day confinement, reduction to E1, total forfeiture of pay, and given a Bad Conduct Discharge.
Case 862 involves a male SSG (E6) and a civilian female. She alleged that while standing in line at Oktoberfest (Germany), he touched her breasts and buttocks. She refused to testify. He received a Letter of Reprimand, effectively ending his career.
I have listed either the first or last case of its type in the report, to illustrate a non-cherry picked example of the charges. After reading through the cases, I would ask, how many of these cases would have had ANY civilian repercussions? If, for example, a man at a party or bar were to touch a woman's butt, would she report it? To whom? And what would be the repercussions? I'm not saying it's a correct course of action, but I am pointing out that the military takes very serious these allegations, and does punish those who do these things, even in an off-post bar or party, even off-duty. Just the allegation can end a career, even when guilt is not proven.
Of the 3,374 reports, the majority are examples of how serious the Military takes offenses that would not be reported in the civilian world.
It does not surprise me that the most powerful politicians and their appointees feel impervious to the constraints of the Constitution. Those that seek power, ferociously guard the power they've attained, while seeking more to obtain. They'll do whatever they can get away with to obtain and retain power. It's as a natural a characteristic as a lion eating a gazelle. In recognition of that, the Founders constrained the government and politicians, and emplaced protections and rights for the People.
What astounds me is that the American People are not outraged by the abuses of power exposed in recent weeks and months. It has been one scandal after another, each more comprehensive and abusive than the one before it. It is more surprising that some of the media has condemned some of the scandals than that they've worked overtime to condone the scandals.
This cycle began with Benghazi, and an obvious lie by the Administration that it was 'just a protest turned violent.' It took months, but Congress was beginning to get to the heart of the matter, that the Administration wasn't just asleep at the wheel, but willfully turned the lights and phones off. It ignored months' worth of pleas from diplomats for more security, including on the day of the attack. It ordered re-inforcements to not assist. Those who work for the State Department should have been upset. Those with a military background are and were angry.
More recently, we learned that the IRS was targeting the ruling party's opponents. The IRS has become a tool and force to paralyze the effectiveness of groups that support the US Constitution, and call for smaller government. Supporters of the party in power were less apt to be upset than those that were affected by the un-Constitutional targeting by an arm of the Government.
Then we learned that the Justice Department had seized the phone records of AP employees and a Fox news journalist. The MSM was finally mad. True Americans of every stripe condemned the seizures as unlawful, and against the 4th Amendment.
More recently, we learned that a Judge had ordered Verizon to provide the data of every single one of it's customers to the NSA. The information collected is so enormous that the data is updated every single day. Then we learned the NSA was also collecting information via Google, Facebook, and other web based programs, with a program called "Prism." The internet giants deny they accepted their role in it, but that doesn't mean much. The government may have worked with or without the permission of the corporations. Nor can we reasonably expect honesty from those corporations, particularly since they are already snooping on their users.
The worst part about that is not that leaders of both parties knew about it, and defend it, but that so few Americans find anything wrong with it. The Politician in Chief has confirmed that the programs exist, and defends the "necessity" of it. The Speaker of the House defends the program. The Senate Minority Leader condemns not the program, but the individual that leaked evidence of it. There's no one truly denying that the government is spying on every single American, on either side of the aisle, and very few that say there's anything wrong with it.
Sure, there are a few Americans out there screaming bloody murder about the obvious and serious abuses of the Bill of Rights by the government, and they are the same ones that have been trying to wake up Americans for years. At a time like this, those that have been noting the abuses for years, should be sitting back and thanking newcomers to reality. The public outrage should be deafening.
So, why isn't it? The fact that leaders of both parties support this infringement of the 4th Amendment, of the Right to Privacy, silences the partisan loyalists of both parties. The fact that so many Americans have no idea what the 4th Amendment is, or what it says, or why it says it, means that too many Americans are too ignorant to know why this action is un-Constitutional, and as such, inherently illegal. Because too many are too ignorant of the differnce between the powers of Congress versus powers of the Judiciary, they don't understand why a FISA court was a necessity, or why a judge's order does not make an illegal act, legal.
In recent years, Americans have come to accept that a court ruling is sufficient to amend the US Constitution. Not even the Supreme Court has the Constitutional Authority to change the Constitution. In fact, the process of amending the Constitution does not have any judicial component at all.
The bottom line is this: If the events and scandals of 2013 have not awoken the People, it will take the kind of door to door searches the Boston Police executed on a Million subjects of Massachusetts, but then again, they willingly accepted that as well. And if the voice of Veterans and Patriots cannot wake up the American People, then I am wasting my time. If the American People cannot be pried away from American Idol, the Voice, and Survivor long enough to give a shit about their own Freedoms, and those of their neighbors, If they are more concerned with forcing their neighbor to pay for things they don't want, and preventing their neighbors from doing what they do want, on their own property, to understand that their own neighbors will curtail their own rights on their own property, then I am wasting my time.
It does not matter how many terrorists are killed abroad, if we enact a tyranny across the board at home. But let me remind those out there, that believe the rising tyranny at home means a call to revolution: If you can't wake the People up with words, violence will not return us to a Constitutional Republic. If the People themselves prefer giving up their Rights in order to lull themselves to sleep with a false belief that they've attained some security, committing further violence will only entrench them more into calls for greater incursions of Freedom.
Since the people have accepted their road to serfdom, they will only be awoken by the chains and whips of their master. That may come too late. But the time nears, that I become more selfish, that I look only to my own Freedoms. My own dependency on technologies is small in comparison to most. When the self-absorbed awaken to their guard towers abandoned, it's on them, not those that guarded Freedom for half their lives.
Evidently, the Federal Government considers us ALL co-conspirators to terrorism. The Administration may refuse to call the Boston Bombers or the Fort Hood Shooter, or the Little Rock Shooter, or the Panty Bomber, or the Times Square Bomber, or any other Islamist, a terrorist. It may have collected their phone records, their internet activity, and everything else, along with yours and mine, but the Constitutional bar, for a warrant to be issued to collect your information, is that there must be evidence of criminal activity. So, that FISA judge, Roger Vinson, must have concluded that ALL Americans are co-conspirators to terrorists.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, with blatant disregard for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 4th Amendment, has decided that any person, innocent or not, without warrant, can be forced to provide his DNA.
The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the authority to alter the Constitution or any amendment to it. It expressly does not give the Supreme Court the authority to write laws, only to rule on the laws Congress writes, and the President passes, and toss out that legislation that is not authorized by the Constitution.
The precedent had been set. The IRS has ignored the 4th and 5th Amendments for decades. More recently it has become the political arm of the Administration, abusing its powers in order to interrogate officers of non-profit organizations on their politics, donors, and supporters, auditing those that oppose the politics of its unions, and holding up the approval process of those that it believes to be politically opposed to their bosses.
Only a few months ago, when the "Prism" program of spying on ALL Americans failed to stop Chechnyan Islamist Terrorists from exploding their pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon, the Boston Police ordered a million citizens to a lockdown, as they conducted a house to house search, again, without success of finding the bomber. They used military technology in aircraft to search the houses, yards, and bushes. But in the end, it was a vigilant citizen outside of the lock downed area, who alerted police to the bomber, and only then was the electronic search of property actually focused on the terrorist.
For years now, travelers have accepted that the TSA could commit sexual assault or use high technology to pornograpically view them, as a price for the convenience of air travel.
While these are all the actions of this Administration, we didn't get to this point in just 5 years. It has however gone from progressive erosion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to an exponential extinction of Rights. The rulers of this land are not solely to blame. It is in the very nature of the majority of those that seek power, to expand the power they have. It is the very nature of politicians to lie. It is the responsibility of Citizens to keep the government in check, to choose Representatives, to force the executive branch to confine its activities to the Constitution.
The politicians lulled Americans to sleep, with a claim that it could keep us safe. They lied to us. They told us that if we weren't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't intrude more into our lives than was absolutely necessary to keep us safe.
The apologists will tell you it is a necessary and good thing that the government knows every person you call, how long you talk to them, and where you and they were when you called. The apologists will tell you that it is necessary for your safety that the government is aware of your every click on the internet.
Dwight D Eisenhower did not think so. He specifically ordered that no Intelligence Agency would EVER spy on any US citizens, including US persons, including US companies. Posse Comitatus means that if a US Citizen is suspected of a crime, it is a law enforcement matter, not a military or intelligence agency issue. The Bill of Rights explicitly lists the Rights of Citizens from the government.
If the recent news of the government's intrusions on the Rights of the Citizenry is insufficient to wake up Americans in sufficient numbers to call for a return to a Constitutional Republic, it will literally take door to door searches to do so. Police States throughout history and the world would cream their jeans over the thoroughness of collection of the US Government's spy agencies on Americans today.
From the databases they have, with simple programs available, they could literally pull up a profile of you, including ALL of your associations, your intrigues, and your activities. A simple association chart would tell them how often you call your grandma, and if you are likely to be having an affair with a co-worker. Just the number of short calls from close proximity to a hotel entrance to someone in the hotel, would give them a reasonable chance of knowing of your liasons. The association chart would tell them what they needed to blackmail you, of what you didn't want others to know, and what you hold important.
You may tell yourself that you have nothing to fear, because you have committed no crimes. You may apologize for these intrusions into the lives of others, because you like the politics of the current ruler, but I remind you that we don't know who the next one will be, or who will run the country in 2025. In 1910, the Russians never dreamed of the purges of Stalin. In 1965, Persians never dreamed that they'd be forced to wear an hijab, or that a man would be sentenced to death for conversion from Islam. In 1955, Cubans never thought they'd be rounded up for wanting to own their own business. In 1925, Korean fathers did not fear their daughters would be forced into sex houses of the enemy. In 1915, the Chinese did not dream their sons would be lined up in a contest of who could chop off the most heads in a day. In 1975, Afghans did not dream of a day when their daughters would have acid thrown in their face for daring to learn to read.
And this information is a demonstration that we no longer have a Constitutional Republic of Citizens with Equal Rights to the President which runs the government, but are instead subjects of a ruler, who will do what he wants.
It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century. [WOTN Editor comments in bold, and brackets.]
For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents [I think he's referring to the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Bill of Rights] that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass [No, they're not just a compass, they define the RESTRICTIONS on government of what it can and can not do.] through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But our commitment to Constitutional principles [Those aren't just "principles." The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW, of the land, superceding Congressional legislation, Executive orders, and international treaty.] has weathered every war [though perhaps not every "peace, or the current administration], and every war has come to an end. [All but four have been won. Two of those "ended" without a Victory are now on the record of the current politician in chief.]
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall [Due to the strong defense built by Reagan, breaking the economic and military back of the Communist Empire], a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home [when Clinton not only cashed in the "peace dividiend," but sold the security stock which had paid it]. For a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. Then, on September 11th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies ['only" Islamist terrorists that stole the planes of civilian companies and crashed them into civilians of the entire world] came to our shores, and our military was not the [ONLY] principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.
History is wrought with examples of subjects of a government rebelling against their ruling tyrant, whether King, Emperor, Czar, Caesar, Ayatollah, or Secretary-General of the Politburo. When the tyrant, the dictator grows too overbearing, too oppressive, or too stingy with the goods, the serfs rebel. They rebel not against the rule of kings, but against the oppression of the current king. They cry out, not for freedom, but instead for an easing of their suffering.
The American War for Independence was different. The People fought for Citizenship, for Rights, for Liberty itself. They established the US Constitution, and guaranteed the Individual Rights of Citizens, in the Bill of Rights, given by God, not government, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
What is the difference? The serfs are demanding the tyrant end his oppression, that he allow them a bit more food, or benefits, while Citizens refuse to allow the government to intrude in their Rights, which are equal to the leader of the government.
Many would pick and choose when they support one or another of the enumerated God-Given Rights, specifically protected in the Bill of Rights, but would deny others their other Rights, when they find them less appealling, or when denial of Rights is deemed expedient. The MSM is particularly frought with hypocritical claims to rights beyond those enumerated, while arguing against the Rights (2nd) of others.
The Boston Bombings provide the most recent example. A 1st year law school dropout could successfully prosecute the case. The evidence is overwhelming, and yet terrorism is not a charge, nor is murder. The excuse is that prosecutors are hedging their bets. They are saying it's not as open and shut a case as everyone that watched the news would note. They are claiming that by not charging the terrorist, now, with murder, they reserve the "right" of the government to charge him later. They point out that McVeigh was also not charged with terrorism, as if that is a reasonable fact. It is a fact, but it is wrong that he was not charged with terrorism, unless the US law defining terrorism as a crime was not yet written. In 1995, and now, my position was that McVeigh should have been tried by a Court Martial, with charges including Treason. He wanted to claim he was a Soldier, and he did in fact have time remaining on his Individual Ready Reserve contract. He should have faced a firing squad, of Soldiers.
In a much more difficult case, McVeigh was convicted for the murder of a handful of Federal Agents. There was no video of him placing the bomb. He was not caught red-handed throwing bombs. LE got lucky that his ideological idiocy convinced him to speed down a highway in a car with no license plate, and a pistol showing under his shirt. Still, he almost was released on the weapons charges. LE got lucky in 1995, because his ideologies told him that the Sheriff's Deputy that pulled him over was a "legitimate" authority figure.
He was not convicted for murdering dozens of kids, or other civilian employees of the government, or senior citizens at the Social Security Admin office. The Janet Reno "Justice" Department and Clinton Administration, had hedged its bets. It did not charge McVeigh with all the murders, because it wanted to reserve "its right" to put him on trial a 2nd time, if the first trial didn't convict him. McVeigh was put in the express line for executions, but his buddy and partner in the act of terrorism is still in the prison system. His buddy only got Life in Prison, and to date, no other prisoner has convicted him to death.
The Bill of Rights says the government has ONE chance to prove your guilt in a crime. It doesn't get to keep trying until it finds a jury that will agree with them. It doesn't get to keep you in jail, or keep you away from a source of income for years, while it keeps trying. It doesn't get to charge you with using an explosive now, and then the effects of that explosive later. It gets ONE chance, and you are presumed innocent, until they do. The jury on the other hand, can convict you of killing the Federal Agents, while finding you "not guilty" of killing the nurse killed by a piece of falling debris hours later.
The Boston Bombing case may very well demonstrate a need for "Immigration Reform," in a way Congress isn't currently discussing, but like it or not, Tsarnaev attained US Citizenship on 9/11/2012. He DOES have Rights, until and unless his citizenship is revoked. He IS an Islamist Terrorist, and it should not be difficult to prove that he perjured himself, under oath, when he swore loyalty to the US and the US Constitution, while acting as an agent of the enemy in attacking American civilians. We DO need to look at the means to prevent such enemies from attaining the shield of US Citizenship, but at the moment, we have an Islamist Terrorist who holds US Citizenship, that should be facing charges of terrorism, treason, murder, and more.
It may be politically expedient, and even popular, to keep putting him on trial, until the warranted death penalty is attained, but it would undermine the Rights of Every American Citizen, if we endorse that. Instead, we should charge him with everything we can in the Boston Bombing case. Throw the book at him. Prove it all. Give him 10 death penalties. The police shootouts may be a separate case, but the two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, and ALL the effects, as well as ALL of the charges from it, are ONE event, and one trial. Terrorism is a Federal charge, because it is an attack on the Nation, on the US Constitution, not just the individuals in the city of the attack.
If we wish to remain, or re-attain, Our position as Citizens, of Equal Rights to the man that presides over OUR govenrment, not serfs, subject to the dictates of the man who Rules our people, we MUST stand up for the Rights of Our Fellow Citizens, even when we find them despicable examples of evil that should have their lives snuffed out. If we wish remain, or re-attain, Liberty, we MUST protect each of the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and we must send Representatives to Congress who uphold their oath to the Constitution, rather than those that pander to the lobbyists that pay their way to maintain their power of office. And at this point, I'd almost say that being a lawyer should be an automatic preclusion to office. Let lawyers argue the law in court, but they lack the ability to write in clear, concise, coherent language.
Evidently, when it is not politically expedient to admit terrorism exists. Tsarnaev, a Chechen Islamist Terrorist who killed 4 people in Boston, wounded hundreds, in two shootouts and three bombings, who had more bombs and had planned more attacks, who ran over his own dying brother and fellow terrorist, is not being charged with terrorism. He is being charged with using a "weapon of mass destruction" and "malicious destruction of property resulting in death." Not only has he not been charged with terrorism, but has not been charged with murder, or attempted murder.
There are at least two counts of terrorism (two bombs), at least four counts of murder, a count of carjacking, and at least 185 counts of attempted murder (injured), that should be charged against him. These are low-hanging fruit, with sufficient evidence, in the public eye, with which the Obama Administration and Eric Holder's "Justice" Department have chosen to not charge the Islamist Terrorist. The White House was slow to admit that the Boston Bombing was an act of terrorism, but to not charge the Islamist Terrorist with terrorism is a slap in the face to every American, not just those that were victims of the attack.
Tsarnaev attained his US citizenship on 9/11/2012, so I can accept the argument to try him in a civilian court. In addition to the clearcut and obvious charges that should be made against him, due to his US citizenship, additional charges of treason, perjury (swearing an oath to the United States and US Constitution while acting as an agent of the enemy) should be levied and his citizenship should be revoked.
In other news, the Canadians announced today that they have arrested terrorists involved in a plot to attack trains in that country. They were far more forthright, clearly stating that this was a plot by AL-QAEDA, In IRAN. Given that currently, investigators are saying they don't know what connections to other terrorists the Tsarnaev brothers had, it is very interesting that the White House was so quick to say that there was no connection between the Boston Bombing, and the Iranian Al-Qaeda plot on the Northern Border.
The terrorists have not "ended" their war, no matter how badly the politicians want to claim the war is over. There is only one way that one side of a war can end it, of their own accord; surrender. There is only one basic goal that must be recognized to win a war; War must take the necessary steps to remove the enemy's will to fight. It appears that the enemy is closer to that goal, despite their heavier losses, than are we.
"There is only way you can be guaranteed peace, and you can have it in a second. That is to surrender." Ronald Reagan, decades before he became President, during the era that politicians were purporting that cutting Our Defenses, and talking the enemy to death was the "right path." Negotiations in weakness did not end the Cold War, and it has not ended the Terrorists' War on Us. Reagan's buildup of Military Strength did bring the Cold War to an end.
While politicians and police slap each other on the back for their "successes" in Boston, they also continue with their calls to cut defense, and to militarize the police. One resident in the search area described the situation as a "police state." And indeed, one of the goals of terrorism is to induce the government to tighten its grip on civilians, while simultaneously demonstrating the lack of effectiveness of the "security blanket" of the government, until the civilians are fed up. The police cannot protect you. That is not their job. Their job is to arrest criminals that have already committed the crimes.
While the first 7 seven years of the War on Terrorism saw a few modest intrusions on our lives, the last 5 of "Overseas Contingency Operations" have seen (TSA) state sponsored sexual assaults and pornographic xrays at the airports, a government which deems your 3 month old email as theirs to read without a warrant, and require new cell phones to update their location to within a few yards.
"Mr Obama and his intelligence community know the threat from al-Qaeda affiliates, but have chosen to downplay it to the US public." Peter Foster, UK Telegraph
The Administration's policies are not one of ignorance, not anymore. They are policies of stubborn partisanship, and party platform to change the very nature of the US Military, from one prepared for war, to one that is utilized only as part of a coalition in peace-keeping operations. Bill Clinton and Eric Shinseki openly espoused that fundamental shift in the 90's, when the world believed we had entered a new era of peace, but the fact of Islamist Terrorism has hampered this Administration from being as straightforward about its goals. It couches the shift in saying that we will pin our defenses on allies given our best equipment, while stripping our own ranks of its Troops and latest equipment.
Islamist terrorists are not just Al-Qaeda. Indeed, islamism is not just terrorism. Islamist terrorists include Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Quds Force (Iran), Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and many, many others. Yet, partisan supporters of the politician in chief would have us believe that various regional commands of Al-Qaeda aren't even part of Al-Qaeda. While at times they proclaim the core element of the former headquarters of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been defeated, they deny that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, or Al-Qaeda in the Islamic West (Maghreb) are the same organization. And yet, reports continue to point out that Al-Qaeda is still active in Afghanistan, and still strong in Pakistan.
Josef Biden has stated both that the Taliban have always been the enemy, and that they are not the enemy, but the Taliban are some of the most fundamental of Islamists, and some of the most atrocious of terrorists, superceded perhaps by the Chechens, in the department of atrociousness.
Islamism is stronger now than it has ever been. It has grown and spread and taken over governments in the last 3 years, through "Arab Spring." The battle lines which had shrunk in 2008, have expanded greatly since 2010. Mubarrak had "contained" Islamists in Egypt for decades. Bashir had pulled back from open support of Islamist terrorists in the Sudan, when he saw the 2001 results in Afghanistan. His final efforts in Darfur were finally ended. Saudi Arabia had quieted and Yemen was slowed. The tide in Iraq had shifted.
Today, Islamism rules Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, and is fighting for Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, and Libya. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey are trending towards, not away from Islamism. And while political Islamism espouses the use of tyranny, rather than openly supporting terrorism, to achieve its goal of establishing the caliphate, of conversion of ALL to Islam, it remains diametrically opposed to Freedom, and the Rights of Citizenship, of Human Rights themselves.
The brutality of Islamists towards religious freedom can be seen in the imprisonment (and death penalties in many cases) of ex-Muslims converted to Christianity in Iran, in Egypt, and in Pakistan. Riots have been seen in Kabul, Afghanistan, over the existence of Bibles written in Dari. All Islamism is political, though it does not all use terrorism as its means. It prefers tyranny. In fact, the goal of Islamist terrorism is to attain the reins of government, so that its tyranny can be more complete. The great migration of religiously oppressed from Tunisia, Egypt, and Somalia are testament to this. And many of those religiously oppressed, like the Bahai of Iran, are Muslims.
For the Coptic Christians in Egypt, the distinction between the fire bombs and explosives of Islamist terrorists during the Mubarrak era and the attacks of Islamist tyrannical government forces under Mosri, is the distinction of lost hope. It is the distinction of being opposed by the government to supported and enforced by the government. While Mubarrak never took the measures Bashir Assad did in wiping off the map, and face of the earth, an entire town for supporting the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, he did keep illegal, though ineffectively suppressed, the organization which called for the brutal oppression of Human Rights.
The Boston attack should serve as a reminder that Islamist Terrorists have not "ended" the war, but so should have the Little Rock, and Fort Hood attacks. In each of these, the terrorists succeeded in killing unarmed Americans, but these are not the only reminders that the terrorists have not lost their will to fight. The panty bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Wrigley Field bomber, the Christmas Tree bomber in Seattle, and many, many more attempted attacks have been downplayed as "lone wolves" or forgotten due to the failures of the enemy to execute the attacks.
Like so many of these others, the Chechen Islamist brothers will likely be played off as "self-islamized, home grown, lone wolves," but the Islamization of those with US passports or greencards is not a new factor in this war. It has long been known that Islamists were trying (and succeeding) to convert violent criminals in our jails. Adam Gadahn, of California, was already a ranking member of Al-Qaeda on 9/11, and the "American Taliban" was captured on the battlefield in the early days of the War in Afghanistan in 2001. It was only a few years ago, that 7 gang-bangers went on a rampage in Oakland, CA in the name of Islamism, after their conversions. The government has known for a decade that the strategy of the enemy was that the first wave of terrorists would be Saudi, the second wave others, and the third stage of attacks carried out by those with US passports and green cards.
A stereo-typical terrorist cell has 4-6 members. It is purposely de-centralized. Tamleran was known to the FBI. He was reported to them by a foreign country, probably Russia, as a potential terrorist. He likely had religious leaders, and terrorist directors, at the Mosque partially paid for by governments in Massachusetts. His Islamization did not occur in a vacuum, and his Uncle has clearly stated that the attack was a dishonor to the family and to all Chechens. But the Chechens were in Afghanistan in 2001, and they are still there in 2013, in lesser numbers, but more often across the border in Pakistan.
While I will agree with Jonn, at This Aint Hell, that Obama was not directly responsible for the Boston Attacks, I must also recognize some of the points made by the UK Telegraph, that the Administration's attempts to claim the War on Terrorism is over, that Al-Qaeda is defeated, has led, partially, to the complacency of the people.
And while "Blame Bush" is overplayed, he didn't quite get it right when he only told the American people to go about their lives. In no way, should he have espoused that the people live their lives in fear, but he should have found a way to give the people a meaningful purpose in the War against Terrorists. He had the foresight to know that this war would not be over quickly, that it would take decades to win, and the humility to recognize that he must change his party platform on "nation building," but in some way, the American People needed to be engaged in the efforts, as were the People, in WWII. That doesn't mean recycling metal, and food rations, or even higher taxes, but it should mean a heightened sense of Situational Awareness.
Neither Bush nor Obama can be blamed for idiots walking around with eyes glued to their iPods, but both should have told the American People to be aware of those around them, to recognize terrorists and criminals. Instead of demonizing Warriors as PTSD afflicted for their heightened sense of awareness after having seen the evil in this world, they should have sponsored people having an awareness of what's around them. They should have reminded the Nation that being aware was not the same as being afraid, that instead that knowing their environs was an innoculation to fear.
The Office of the President, has a mandate to preside over the government, and to lead the Nation, to explain to the People "why" a war is in their interests, and how they can help win it. It is not enough for him to say I'll do what I want, what I believe, because I won the election, particularly not in these times, where we choose from the less bad choice, rather than those we truly believe prepared for the Office. It is not enough for the President to understand the importance of fighting terrorists there, so we don't see American Civilians murdered here. It is his duty to explain that "why" to the American People, so they understand it, particularly when his partisan opponents see the lack of explaination as the means to undermine him, and the Nation, for political purposes of attaining power. And not giving that "why" was Bush's failure.
6:21PM ET: A letter addressed to an unknown Senator has been intercepted, containing Ricin, a potent chemical weapon. The envelope was tested three times with results positive for Ricin. No Further Details at this time. Updates as facts become available.
6:40 ET Letter addressed to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-MS. Possible suspect in custody. Letter being tested a 4th time in Maryland at this time.
17 APR 2013: A 2nd letter containing ricin has been intercepted, which was addressed to President Obama. Evidently the letters were postmarked Memphis, TN and contained the initials "KC."
The arrest of Paul Kevin Curtis, 45, related to the case, has been made in Tupelo, MS, apparently by the FBI, based on information provided by the DC Police.
23 APR 2013: Charges against Paul Kevin Curtis were dropped. No evidence of ricin had been found in any place the government had searched. No new suspect has been named.
By Cheryl Pellerin, AFPS, JAKARTA, Indonesia, March 21, 2013 - The Defense Department has begun to shift its intellectual and physical weight to the Asia-Pacific to reinforce longstanding military commitments to the region, Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter said here yesterday.
Jakarta was the final stop of the deputy defense secretary's weeklong trip to Asia, which included visits to defense and government officials in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines.
Speaking as part of an international panel at the third Jakarta International Defense Dialogue, or JIDD, Carter said the United States is serious about its commitment to the region and detailed elements now in motion of a rebalance called for in the department's 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance.
Despite U.S. spending cuts and ongoing budget debates in Congress, the deputy defense secretary said, DOD is using whatever flexibility it has in managing its budget to favor and protect the rebalance.
"The rebalance will continue and in fact gain momentum for two reasons. First, U.S. interests here are enduring and so also will be its political and economic presence," Carter told an audience of nearly 1,500 defense, government and security officials from around the world.
"This presence is accompanied by values -- democracy, freedom, human rights, civilian control of the military, and respect for the sovereignty of nations -- that America has long stood for and that human beings welcome and I think relate to," he added, "So our interest in the region will be both believed and reciprocated."
Former Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and President Barack Obama have made recent visits to the region, he said, as have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.
Secretary of State John Kerry will make his first trip here next month, Carter said, " ... and Secretary [Chuck] Hagel, who as a senator led the first U.S. congressional delegation to the Shangri-La Dialogue, is staunchly committed to this region as well, [and] will be attending Shangri-La."
Carter said each U.S. leader visiting the region, in his or her own way, emphasized the central importance of the Asia-Pacific region to the United States, "and our commitment to making sure that this region remains safe, secure and prosperous."
He said the rebalance means that a higher proportion of defense assets will move to the region.
"Secretary Panetta announced last year that 60 percent of our naval assets will be assigned to the Asia-Pacific region by 2020," Carter noted, "a substantial and historical shift."
The Air Force, he noted, will increase its presence in the region with tactical aircraft like the F-22 stealth fighter; space, cyber and bomber forces; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets like the MQ-9 Reaper, the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft; and the Global Hawk high-altitude unmanned reconnaissance aircraft.
"We will be able to leverage more capacity from our ground forces, including the Army, Marines and special operations forces, now that they are coming home to the Pacific from Iraq and Afghanistan," Carter said, adding, "Also we are modernizing and enhancing our forward presence across the region in cooperation with our allies and partners."
Beginning with Northeast Asia, Carter said DOD is modernizing and updating alliances with Japan and South Korea.
"In Japan we've added aviation capability, we are in the process of realigning the Marine Corps presence in Okinawa, and we are upgrading our missile defense posture," he told the audience. The department is also working to revise defense guidelines there to meet 21st century challenges, he said.
On the Korean Peninsula, DOD is implementing the Strategic Alliance 2015 agreement and taking steps to advance the alliance's military capabilities to meet the North Korean threat.
Under the SA 2015 roadmap, wartime operational control of Korean forces will transition from the U.S.-ROK Combined Forces Command to the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff in December 2015, according to a January statement by U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Sung Kim.
U.S. Forces Korea will become the U.S. Korea Command, or Korcom, and provide manpower for a supporting relationship with the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff. The United States will continue to back the defense of the Republic of Korea with the full might of the U.S. military, Kim added.
The Defense Department also is enhancing its presence in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region, Carter said.
"We are not only rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific but also within the Asia-Pacific, in recognition of the growing importance of Southeast Asia to the region as a whole [and] emphasizing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, capacity building and multilateral exercises," the deputy secretary added.
In Australia last year, the initial company of Marines rotated through Darwin in the first step toward using this presence to engage in bilateral and multilateral exercises with regional partners.
In the Philippines, the department is working to enhance the capacity of the Philippines Armed Forces and increase DOD rotational presence and partnerships with that key treaty ally, Carter explained.
In Singapore, the first of four littoral combat ships will arrive early next month, providing a key capability to work bilaterally and multilaterally with partners in the region, he added.
"Next, while we will preserve and integrate the counter-insurgency capabilities that we have worked so hard to develop over the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan," Carter said, "we are giving priority in our ... budget to development platforms and capabilities that have direct applicability and use in this region."
Such investments include the Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarine, the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter, the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, the Broad Area Maritime Sensor, a new stealth bomber, the KC-46 tanker replacement, cruise missiles and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, the deputy secretary said.
"We are also protecting our investments in future-focused capabilities that are so important to this region," he added, "such as cyber, science and technology investments, and space."
DOD is also investing in its people, Carter said, in language and cultural skills and regional and strategic affairs to ensure that the department can cultivate the intellectual capital that will be required to make good the rebalance.
The United States is also making critical investments in training ranges and bases such as Guam, which the department is developing as a strategic hub for the Western Pacific, he said.
"Fourth, finally and most importantly," the deputy secretary noted, "we are revitalizing and expanding our partnerships across the region. That's the key. I've mentioned the work we are doing with Japan, Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines, but we're doing many other things in other parts of the region as well."
- Last November DOD worked with treaty ally Thailand to update the U.S.-Thailand Joint Vision Statement for the first time in 50 years.
- With New Zealand, signing the Washington Declaration and related policy changes opened new avenues for defense cooperation in maritime security cooperation, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and peacekeeping support.
- In Burma DOD has resumed limited military-to-military relations and is working to ensure that the Burmese military supports Burma's ongoing reforms.
- With the Vietnamese, through a new memorandum of understanding, DOD is expanding cooperation in maritime security, search and rescue, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
- In Malaysia and Indonesia, the department is working to build partner capacity and conduct maritime security and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
China and India also are a critical part of the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, Carter said.
DOD has invited China to participate in the U.S.-hosted RIMPAC exercise, the world's largest multinational maritime exercise, involving 22 nations during its most recent iteration in 2012.
"We are delighted to have their participation in what will be a strengthening and growing military-to-military relationship with China, which matches and follows our growing political and economic relationship with China," the deputy secretary said.
Carter called India "a key part of our rebalance and, more broadly, an emerging power that we believe will help determine the broader security and prosperity of the 21st century."
U.S. security interests with India converge on maritime security and broader regional issues, he said, "including India's 'Look East' policy, an attempt to forge closer and deeper economic integration with its eastern neighbors.
With India, Carter said, the department is also working to deepen defense cooperation, moving beyond defense trade to technology sharing and coproduction.
Multilaterally, he added, the department recognizes the importance of strengthening regional institutions like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, which plays what the deputy secretary called "an indispensable role in maintaining regional stability and resolving disputes through diplomacy."
The United States can and will succeed in rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific in the years to come, Carter told the audience.
"As we succeed in this," he added, "we look forward to doing it with all of you represented in this room."
Note: Ashton Carter is a political appointee of Barack Obama.
Finestain says the Iraq war caused "new phenomenon" of PTSD means Troops and Veterans shouldn't be exempted from gun ban legislation.
Sen Coryn notes Veterans with PTSD are already banned from owning weapons. The exemption for Veterans, Troops, and Retirees was voted down on a Partisan line. Exemptions have been emplaced for retired LEO's, but not retired or currently serving Military.
The Department of Defense announced today a grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) for $26,560,000 to the Hawaii Department of Education for the renovation and expansion of Hale Kula Elementary School, Wheeler Schofield Army Airfield, Hawaii.
The Hawaii Department of Education will manage a $33,200,000 project consisting of $26,560,000 in grant funds and a non-federal share of $6,640,000 in matching funds to renovate and expand the school which serves 970 students in grades pre-kindergarten through fifth.
The school funding is from the $500 million program authorized by Section 8109 of Public Law 112-10, the DoD and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, and Section 8118 of Public Law 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, to construct, renovate, repair or expand public schools located on military installations. OEA, in making the school funds available, must give priority consideration to those military installations with schools having the most serious capacity or facility condition deficiencies, as determined by the Priority List. A multi-disciplined federal evaluation team, with membership from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the military services, U.S. Department of Education, and OEA reviewed the school projects to ensure the awards appropriately address the noted capacity and facility condition deficiencies.
The remaining unobligated funds previously appropriated for this program to assist other local education agencies in addressing the most serious capacity or facility condition deficiencies at public schools located on military installations will be subjected to the March 1 sequestration order.
Chairman: Senator Josef Biden Ranking Republican: Senator Orin Hatch Member: Senator Diane Feinstein
Testimony: victims, law enforcement, politicians, August 3rd, 1993:
2013: (Acting) Chairman: Senator Diane Feinstein notes that in 10 years 350 were killed by what she had banned. This bill purports that it would have prevented 35 lives a year. (Video not yet available).
Car accidents kill tens of thousands of people every year. Use of a cell phone while driving is a major factor in those deaths. Ten times as many people are murdered by hammers and other blunt objects every year. Fifty times as many people are killed by knives and other sharp objects. Less than 10% of all murders involving a rifle, are done by a criminal bearing an assault rifle. More people defend their lives, successfully, with an "assault" rifle, than are murdered by one, every year in the United States.
Yesterday, President Karzai has ordered US Special Forces out of Wardak Province. The US-Afghanistan relationship has changed significantly since 2008 and its unlikely to improve before 2017. To be fair, the relationship has constantly deteriorated since the first trip that then Presidential candidate, and junior Senator from Illinois, but presiding chairman of the Senate Afghanistan committee took to Afghanistan in 2008. The junior politician with no real experience disrespected the elder President, in his own home, back then, ordering the President to bow to the junior Senator's orders, while alleging crimes against his host.
The complete lack of cultural understanding meant that the Obama-Karzai relationship would never be a good one. There is no more enduring memory, than that of an Afghan. They are slow to befriend strangers, and have strict rules of conduct with regards to host-guest. They are loyal to friends, but not to those that attempt to buy them off. Their trust is not given lightly, but once given, it is enduring.
So, when Obama campaigned to install a "counter-weight" to Karzai, despite the elections of Afghans, it was not just in disregard of democracy, but a direct assault to Karzai. When it campaigned to elect Karzai's rival to his position, it sealed the animosity towards Obama, personally. When Obama sent the arrogant Holbrooke to an "AfPak" to tell the two countries what to do, it ignored the proud sovereignity of the Afghan people, and implied the larger Afghan nation was subservient to their neighbors, which still supports the terrorists undermining the Afghan government.
Since 2009, Karzai has demonstrated a less than positive response to the Obama Administration, and has made some demands that are less than positive towards operations there, but until now, it has been mostly bluster, the kind of political mouthing off that is expected of a politician, while the reality of enforcement of those demands was less than forceful. Mostly, it was the kind of talk the Afghan people expected of their own sovereign and duly elected leader, while he winked at US Commanders, though not so much at the "diplomats" of the Administration.
Eikenberry, Holbrooke, and Clinton had all burnt their bridges with Karzai, with a total disregard for Afghan culture, and an attitude of Karzai being a vassal of Emperor Obama. If there was one positive to Kerry's appointment, it was that his previous encounters with Karzai had demonstrated respect of that culture. Despite, all the other negatives of Kerry, Karzai was the one place I expected he would make a positive difference.
Nevertheless, the re-election of Obama, to serve for the rest of Karzai's term, means that Karzai knows relations with the US will not improve while Karzai is President. It means that Karzai has no need to pretend to get along with the Obama Administration, during the rest of his lame duck session. And Obama's insistence on "ending" the war, while demanding the basing of "counter-terrorism" Troops and drones to bomb the neighbors in Afghanistan means that the best Afghanistan can hope for, is a steady stream of dollars, after Karzai is out of office.
There is very little future for Karzai, or Afghanistan's democratically elected government, except the recognition that there will be a steady increase in Taliban, and other terrorist elements. That means the smart money is on a return to Taliban rule, or at least great swathes of Taliban control. It means the smart Afghan politicians are making accomodations to that eventuality. Obama is pulling out, and cutting the number of Afghan Troops he'll have America pay for, while at the height of US, NATO, and Afghan Troops, there was still a great deal of Taliban influence. He's "ending it" to demise of US friends, and the joy of the Taliban, and other enemies.
The post 2008 Karzai-US relationship is in stark contrast to the 2001-2008 relationship. In 2001, Karzai was nearly killed in the fight against the Taliban, alongside US Special Forces Troops. It was a US Special Forces Medic that saved Karzai's life. In 2004, he was asking Bush for a continued US presence in Afghanistan, and even a bigger presence. As late as 2008, he was a strong ally of the US. And it is astounding that few else seem to notice the link between what was and what is.
But then RealPolitik comes into play. The reality is that Karzai's deteriorated relationship with the Obama Administration is terminal. It means that Karzai is moving towards appeasement of the Taliban, in part out of insistence from the Obama Administration, but more due to the reality that they will be too strong to resist with too few Afghan Troops in 2015.
At this point, the US must consider whether to consider the Afghan government an enemy, and fight another war of regime change, or to abandon the country completely, to the Taliban, but the allied relationship is no longer salvageable, and the Obama Administration made a bunch of commitments, but received little in return when it signed the "spike the Football" tour agreement with Afghanistan on 1 May 2012. The greatest gift, and greatest asset, we have to offer Afghanistan is Our Special Forces Troops. Kicking them out of an entire province does not bode well for the future of Afghanistan, the War on Terror, or our continued efforts in Afghanistan related to it.
The only real certainty is that 2017 will bring a new US President dealing with a different Afghan leader, but at this juncture, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where the 2006 US-Afghan relations have returned, or an Al-Qaeda as weak as it was in 2008.
Michael Lipin, VoA, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered the removal of all U.S. special forces from an eastern province in response to allegations that those forces or their Afghan allies may have committed rights abuses against civilians.
Karzai's spokesman Aimal Faizi told reporters Sunday that a government investigation of security incidents in Wardak province found that armed men suspected of ties to U.S. Special Forces were engaged in "harassing, annoying, torturing and even murdering innocent people." He said the Afghan defense ministry has been ordered to ensure that all U.S. Special Forces are out of the province within two weeks.
"All the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are obliged to immediately prevent the operations by all the groups under the name of Special Forces, who are going into houses of people, which results in disturbance and killing of our innocent people and bring to justice, in order to safeguard the properties and lives of people in Maidan Wardak province," Faizi said.
It is the first time the Afghan president has issued such an order against the forces of the United States, a key ally which has been helping Kabul to combat a more than decade-long Islamist insurgency by Taliban terrorists, expelled from power in Afghanistan by forces including US 5th Special Forces Group, and forces including Karzai, and those commanded by him and others.
A U.S. Forces Afghanistan spokesman said he is aware of reports about Mr. Karzai's order. Speaking to VOA by phone from Kabul, Lt. Col. Les Carroll said the U.S. military "takes all allegations of misconduct seriously" and goes to "great lengths to the determine the facts." He said U.S. officers "intend to fully discuss" the issue of alleged rights abuses with their Afghan counterparts.
The Afghan presidential statement cited two recent examples of alleged misconduct by Afghan militias in Wardak allied to U.S. Special Forces. In one incident, it said nine people disappeared during an operation by what it called a "suspicious force," while in the other, the tortured body of a student was found two days after he was "taken away at night from his home."
Karzai's office said the U.S. military denied any involvement in such cases. It said Afghan security forces will bring to justice those responsible for the abuses and urged local residents to help identify the culprits.
In an additional move, Karzai ordered the U.S.-led NATO force in Afghanistan to stop all special force operations in Wardak immediately.
NATO troops have facilities in Wardak. But Afghan government forces "already have taken a security lead" in some parts of the province as part of a NATO plan to withdraw most of its troops from the country by the end of 2014.
Taliban attacks in Wardak have declined in recent months, as is normal during the winter months.
Wardak's population is predominantly Pashtun, the same ethnic group as the Taliban, and Karzai. A VOA reporter in Islamabad says Pashtun tribal elders may be using the "improved security situation" to pressure Mr. Karzai into removing allied forces from the province.
But, insurgent attacks have continued in other parts of eastern Afghanistan, where three Afghan security personnel were killed in suicide bombings on Sunday.
In one of the day's attacks, a suicidal Islamist car bomber rammed a vehicle into the gate of an intelligence compound in the eastern city of Jalalabad. Officials said the blast killed two agents of the National Directorate of Security and wounded three others. In another attack, a suicidal Islamist car bomber struck a police checkpoint in the nearby town of Puli Alam, killing one officer. Islamist Taliban terrorists claimed responsibility for both bombings.
Authorities said security forces thwarted an additional suicide car bombing in Kabul by shooting and killing the would-be assailant. They said the incident happened near a construction site in a part of the capital housing government and foreign diplomatic offices. Terrorists had staged a large-scale attack in the area last April.
00:38: SEN Menendez (D-NJ) welcoming Hillary Clinton and heaping praise on her.
[WOTN note: Some of the following is paraphrased and some is quotes. Some of the quotes are not in quotation marks. Effort was made to capture the essence of the words, in order to allow readers to find the specific portions of most signifcant interest to them. Some key phrases are emphasized, as Hillary acknowledges that Al-Qaeda is still and will be a threat for a long time.
In this testimony, Hillary avoids stating why no action was taken in the 7 hour attack and at times refuses responsibility for inaction, while at other times proclaiming that she takes full responsibility. She does indicate that Rice was using Admin approved talking points, but feebly attempts to defend it.]
10:46: SEN Corker (R-TN) welcoming Hillary, the "aftermath" of "Benghazi represents the worst of Washington," "there was spin from the White House," "it represented of the denial of the world as it really is," "it also represents an awakening," "the spiking of the ball" and the thinking that al-Qaeda was defeated when we killed bin Laden, that the world is a much more dangerous place today.
16:46: SecState Clinton (D) pointing out past attacks, that she immediately began talking to people about talking, began investigation the next day. The attack "was a part of broader strategic challenge" to the United States. "I was there on the night of 9/11/2012." I was talking to everyone, and the military did not deny support. I was already there dealing with the attack on the US Embassy in Cairo. Everyone has been talking about things ever since, and when people stopped talking and finished writing about the talking, I told people to start writing some more about making changes. "The Arab revolutions have shattered" the stability of the Middle East. We're working with the Algerians to prevent this from happening again. I talked to a bunch of Arab leaders after the 9/11/2012 attacks. Then I talked to them some more. "We cannot afford to retreat now." "It is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need." The State Department has 70,000 people working in 275 locations around the world.
29:34 Menendez: 5 minutes per Senator to discuss Benghazi. Menendez goes first. Why was the location chosen.
31:03 Hillary: There were attacks in the parking lot of the Hotel where they previously were, as well as many other locations. There were ongoing efforts to find the best place. "There were inadequacies in the response." "During most of the day, prior to getting notification on the attack in Benghazi, I was focused on the attack on our Embassy in Cairo" "I was notified of the attack shortly after 4pm." I immediately started talking to people. I ordered people to get the Libyan government to do something. I talked to Petraeus since he had people in the same area. We were going over every possible option and talking to everybody that we could talk to. It was constant talking and I talked to Obama later in the evening. While we were trying to understand we were faced with protests all over the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
37:03 Corker: "There were systemic deficiencies and I know you know that." "No one has been held accountable." "Could you mention one reform" that could have made it known to you that there were problems there.
38:14 Clinton: "I didn't see the requests."
Corker: "They did come into folks. Someone did turn them down."
Clinton: We're on the path to fix it. We want to re-allocate funds. We need more money for construction and for Marines. "Noone wants to sit where I am."
Corker: "None of the ARB's have been fully implemented."
Clinton: "The vast majority have been implemented."
Corker: "We were woefully unprepared for what happened in North Africa." Benghazi symbolizes that.
Clinton: 4 years ago, "no one" thought that Mubarrak, Qaddaffi, and others would be gone. None of us predicted this. "This is a serious threat to our country." "They don't have any real experience in running countries." "We face a serious jihadist threat."
Four years ago, I opined on the hubris of the incoming President concerning ending a 6 decade old tradition of attending the Medal of Honor "Salute to Heroes" Inaugural Ball. This Ain't Hell had reported on the missing POTUS, through their own attendee, TSO, who was there as part of the American Legion which sponsors the ball.
The Washington Examiner reports that he will again skip the ball. I cannot say I am surprised. Well, I'm a little surprised. I know he's a smart enough politician that I thought he might learn from his previous mistake. But this time, he has nothing to lose by not attending. He can't run again. And the fact is that not attending in 2009 was forgotten by the voters in 2012 anyway. Or rather, too many voters just didn't care, even in 2009.
But, he has demonstrated an ambivalence to Our Nation's Troops and Veterans, if not antipathy. He has consistently called for cutting Our Troops, their equipment, and the budget to support their efforts. He has asked Congress to cut the National Guard and Reserve's monthly pay in half. He has attempted to charge Veterans for their service connected injury health care. He has stumped for cutting 100k Soldiers and Marines. He has told the Air Force to patch up old F-15's rather than fund next generation F-22's. The Navy is making do with fewer aircraft carriers than the mission dictates.
As to Veterans, Obama appointed the worst General of the 90's and Oughts as Secretary of the VA. Shinsucki brought his same demoralizing policies from the Army to the VA. He blindly supported the POTUS's efforts to charge Veterans, and pay for the DoD budget with the surcharges on VA Health Care paid out of the pockets of Disabled Veterans and Military Retirees. Under Shinsucki, backlogged claims skyrocketed and delays in settling them jumped to many extra months.
The number of attendees at the ball is also down, from 48 to 25 Medal of Honor recipients. They are aging and dying off. Even after 11 1/2 years of war, there have been fewer new awards than there have been previous recipients that we have lost to old age. And the physical capability of those remaining is declining.
The Citizenry failed to hold him accountable for his anti-Troop policies in his 1st 4 years, for his snubbing of Our Nation's most proven Heroes 4 years ago, and have lost their respect for Our Troops and Veterans. This Nation has not returned to the general antipathy and loathing it exhibited towards its protectors in the 70's, but it has turned away from the respect and honor it demonstrated them in the 50's and 80's. That is reflected in and amplified by in the politicians in Washington.
Cpl Joshua Boston, former Marine, stepped into the spotlight following his open letter challenging Senator Feinstein's gun grab legislation, and calling Britain's Piers Morgan to return to the island of Banned Guns. Boston is representing sanity fairly well though Obama has decided not to deport the gun hating Morgan who is on a crusade to scrap the Bill of Rights.
Piers Morgan was fired in May of 2004 from his Editor position at Britain's Daily Mirror for publication of falsified pictures of Troops mistreating Iraqi prisoners. At least 4 British Soldiers were arrested over the false pictures.
Meanwhile, someone claiming to have also been a Marine, decides to throw his two cents into the pool:
"Boston’s attitude towards authority is frankly disgusting and his open letter is wrong in both its assumptions about why the gun-control debate has become heated, and the reasons why we should care about his opinions at all. It implies that because he served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine, that he can choose which laws to obey while at home." "Anonymous Marine," as reported at This Ain't Hell
Let's put this in another context: Politicians and journalists attitude towards the Supreme Law of the Land is frankly disgusting and their open contempt for the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect is wrong in both the arrogance that they are above the law, and the reasons why we should allow them to sit in their chairs at all. It implies that because they won a popularity contest in the career pathes of the least trusted people in our Nation that they can choose which instances they will obey the Supreme Law of the Land.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article VI, US Constitution
In other words, the hierarchy of law is: The US Constitution (including Amendments), US Law made in accordance with the Constitution, Treaties, and State Laws. Any law that violates the provisions of the US Constitution is hence not a law, including treaties, including treaties with the UN.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Amendment II, US Constitution.
Activist judges included, any law that infringes on the Right of the People to keep and bear arms is hence illegal and NOT a law to begin with. "Common Law" does not supercede the US Constitution, as the Judicial Branch is not given legislative authority, and are specifically bound by the US Constitution above and beyond their bounds of State and US Law, and common law legal proceedings which are also bound by the Law.
Hence, the only Constitutional or legal means by which that Right can be infringed is to amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd Amendment itself. No Vice-President, President, Journalist, Judge, UN body, or even the unanimous votes of the entire Congress can legally infringe the Right of the People, unless the Constitution itself is amended.
The anonymous Marine, along with General McChrystal, need to review their oath, to the US Constitution, and the Constitution which they swore to protect. It supercedes the whims of Congress, Presidents, Governors, Mayors, Politicians, and Pundits of the MSM, particularly those non-Citizens.
Piers Morgan, who is a journalist, a profession that is supposed to report the facts, not to advocate policy, is not an American, and has a passport for a place that has already banned firearms. If he wants to live in a place with the soaring violent crimes of a gun-free country, he can move home. If he wants to advocate for something, it should be for the arrest of his fellow journalist David Gregory to be arrested for breaking current gun laws in that gun-free mecca of violence and hot air, Washington DC.
Piers states (on CBS) that his brother is an officer in the British Army and has served in Afghanistan. That does not mean he "understands," as he claims, what a Warrior sacrifices. That means his brother does, not him. Piers states that he doesn't want his child growing up in a country with assault weapons, which are almost "M4 machine guns," further demonstrating his ignorance of weapons. (M4 carbines are NOT machine guns and the only way that AR-15's are "assault rifles" is by declaration of politicians and parroting of journalists.) The automatic firing M4 is an assault rifle, as is an automatic version of the AK-47. Civilian semi-automatic weapons are NOT.
However, given the information above, Piers is probably not very welcome in the Island Nation. I doubt visits to his brother's house are welcomed either. Given his lack of integrity, even by journalist standards, he fits right in at CNN, who must have known of the pictures published by Piers. The Piers Morgan resume ain't so shiny either. And he was an anti-war "journalist" from the word 9/11.
Piers has a place to go, home. It already meets his criteria. As a subject of the British Empire, he doesn't have a dog in this debate. We broke our chains of the monarchy 237 years ago, and restated Our Independence, and the Independent Rights of Our Citizens in 1812, when they attempted to enslave Our Sailors. In both wars, we were outgunned and outmanned, by a Empirical force that was better trained and equipped, but let not the memory of Andrew Jackson and Tennesseans at New Orleans fade too quickly. That battle was fought with the best firearms a civilian could buy, and more Volunteers than Jackson could pay, but a far smaller force than the Empire sent.
No where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention what a Citizen "needs" or "hunting purposes." What it explicitly states is "shall not be infringed."
Despite the facts, some are arguing that long metal tubes embedded in plastic, ie. rifles, are evil. Senator Feinstein is arguing that we should ban and confiscate the tools of self-defense, though she owns and carries firearms herself, and works behind the protection of armed security.
Several politicians have stepped up to the podium to bemoan the electoral muscle of the NRA, but the NRA cannot pull a lever or push a button for any candidate. What it does do, is monitor the politicians and tell the voters how a particular candidate has voted on gun legislation. The influence of the NRA is that the majority of voters are against unConstitutional gun restrictions, in most of America.
Paul Howe, a 20 year Special Operations veteran and weapons instructor, explored the possibilities of how gun confiscation programs would be executed. In essence, he concluded that a forcible attempt to take firearms from the People would result in violent resistance, and that those officials that attempted it would be run out of town. In places like Texas, where Mr. Howe works, and in places like Tennessee, he is possibly correct. In places like Chicago, California, and New York, things could very well be different. In fact, much of the Northeast and the Left Coast have already voluntarily given up huge parts of their 2nd Amendment Right, voluntarily, without a fight. These days, I don't underestimate the people's willingness to tolerate "small" abuses of tyranny, by the government they "know."
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”– Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y.
Others have opined that the gun control debate is just a distraction technique, to get people's attention off the fact that Obama just raised taxes on 100% of America's workers, and other negatives out of Washington. At a minimum, FICA taxes went up by 2% on the first dollar (and most of the rest)you made this year, and 2% on your employer for paying you to work, as well as the ObamaCare taxes. These tax increases won't pay for the new subsidies to DNC special interests, like "green energy." In their arguments, the politicians know that the House will prevent gun grabs, and are happy that the economy and fiscal cliff are finally seeing reduced air time in the media.
Even General McChrystal decided now was the time to break his silence. He opined that M4's belong on the battlefield, not in schools. Who could argue with that? I'll argue that airplanes belong in the air and airports, not on the roads and rivers, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to land one on your own cornfield, or keep one in your barn. When I was on the battlefield, I preferred that I had better weapons than the enemy, and that the bystanders be unarmed, but that doesn't mean I shot someone just because they had an AK-47, or even took it away from them. It just would have been easier to identify the actual enemy if non-combatants didn't have weapons, and that I could have shot all those that did, from a distance beyond the AK's effective range.
Then again, General McChrystal was fired by the politician he voted for, and ordered that Our Troops unload their weapons inside our bases in Afghanistan. Perhaps, he should have weighed in on why that politician ignored him and his recommendations on Afghanistan, instead of whether or not American Citizens should be stripped of their Rights. Perhaps, he should protect the Constitution he swore to protect, rather than the party he voted to put in power.
The gun industry and sports stores got an economic boost from the "debate," as law abiding citizens stocked up on what they feared would be taxed out of the supply system, or banned outright. Or as others have opined, Americans aren't stocking up before a ban, but preparing for a Civil War.
While the state legislature in Tennessee along with county and municipal officials discuss meaningful means to safeguard Our Children, politicians in other States are passing new laws that infringe the 2nd Amendment Rights of their subjects. Some of the new measures do include armed officials at the schools, as well as controlled entry points into those schools, with locked doors and key cards to get inside. Tennessee is considering the authorization of armed teachers, which has worked in Utah and Texas. The discussion of School Security did not start after Newton, but it was given greater prominence as a result.
On the other hand, Govenor Cuomo is pushing for banning even more rifles in the State of New York. The mayor of Burlington, VT has enacted new laws against rifles, though there appears to be no history of rifles being used in Burlington crimes.
And while the MSM returns to using the Aurora, CO massacre as an emotionally charged call for banning the means of self-defense, it ignores the more recent San Antonio theater shooting, in which a massacre was prevented by a woman with a gun. They ignore the Aurora church shooting which preceded the theater shooting, where an Armed Citizen prevented another massacre. They ignore thousands of such stories every year, because it doesn't fit their argument.
Some are claiming that the NRA and gun-owners are out of touch, and short on facts, or unskilled in debate. I contend that those that defend the Constitution, and Individual Liberty, are instead poor at executing their "marketing campaign." History and facts are clearly behind Liberty and small government leading to prosperity, and national prominence.
I would argue that the MSM's monopoly on information dissemination has hamstrung those that oppose their view. While the internet provides the tools for information to be disseminated outside of the MSM monopoly, even those that report information on websites rely on the MSM for their sources of information. This has created a circuitous cycle where the MSM still controls the debate, while individuals can falsely conclude that they are immune from its influence. The MSM talks about Aurora, or Newton, or Karzai, and the bloggers and Facebookers cite them. If you don't believe me, just look at the topics you discuss on Twitter and Facebook versus what the MSM is talking about.
While there are occasions that the internet buzz forces the MSM to address that which they attempt to ignore, like the Green Movement in Iran, or the Islamist takeover in Egypt, or Benghazi terrorist attack, it is both rare, and again slanted to their views. While CNN has no qualms publishing classified information from the US, it bowed to the demands to keep its reporters out of the streets of Tehran. And as they ignore the persistance of Islamist terrorists taking over the revolution in Syria, their female reporters are indicators as they cover their hair in the presence of Islamists. The more their hair is covered, the more extreme the Islamist faction.
Some facts: 33,808 Americans were killed in automobile accidents in 2009. 4,872 of those killed were not even in a vehicle. 4,092 of those killed were simply walking along. In contrast, 351 people were murdered with a rifle in 2009 (323 in 2011). Personal objects (817 murders) such as hand and feet, blunt objects such as hammers (623), knives (1,836), and shotguns (423) were used in more murders than were rifles of ANY kind in 2009.
Hopefully, there will never be a call to ban hands and feet, though more people are killed with them. It is impractical to attempt to ban hammers, though there are probably fewer of them. And despite the fact that cars kill more people than firearms, by more than 100 times the rate, I haven't heard anyone call for a ban on automobiles, other than the environmental whackos, and that's for an entirely different reason. Ten times as many pedestrians were killed by cars than were all Americans killed by rifles, and yet, there's no call to ban Sports Cars, or Limos, or even Pintos.
And let's look at England, as "gun murders" there are often used as proof that dis-arming the People leads to lower crime rates. The reality is that it does change the weapons used, but that England has a far greater violent crime rate, per capita, than does America. We could look at Mexico, but there are far more similiarities between the English and Americans than there are between Mexicans and Americans. Still, the gun murder rate in Mexico is far greater than in either, and they've banned guns for far longer. More than 12,000 were murdered over drugs alone in our less populous Southern Neighbor in 2011.
In England and Wales, 615 murders occurred in the 2009-10 timeframe, along with 588 attempted murders. Of the 54,509 sexual crimes, 13,991 women and 1,174 men were raped, making Detroit's 427 rapes look like a safe haven. There were 1,868 kidnappings. England and Wales had 55,240,000 people at the end of that period, or roughly 1/6th the US population. There were 871,712 violent crimes in that period, which includes part of 2009 and part of 2010. There were 32,491 charges of illegal weapon possession, along with 9,962 conspiracies to commit murder, in 2007/08. 19% of violent crimes involved a weapon, including 7,995 involving firearms and 33,771 involving a knife.
Only 45% of violent crimes were reported to the Police in England. Of those not reporting, 52% said they believed the Police could not or would not do anything about it (or it was "too trivial"), while 36% said they dealt with it themselves. Another 3% said they didn't report it because it was "a common occurrence." There were an estimated 2.2 Million violent crimes committed in England & Wales in 2010/2011.
England and Wales have a violent crime rate of 1,574 per 100,000 in 2009/10 and far worse than even America's most violent cities, such as Chicago's 1,050 per 100,000 or Washington DC's 1,326/100,000. And far worse than the US National rate of 405 per 100,000. What do Chicago, DC, and England have in common? Anti-gun laws. In contrast, Chicago is far more urban than England, and England is less urban than America as a whole.
Many argue that we "must do something." The "something" so many argue for ignores the facts, and plays on emotion. The "something" almost always calls for greater government interference in the lives of individual Citizens. It may feel like we have "done something" by holding a protest or signing a petition, and sometimes those are the best ways for Individual Citizens to "do something," but the most important "something" we can do is educate ourselves, and point Our Friends and Family to the base information, so that they can as well. It may be emotionally satisfying to "do something" but before we do, we should look at the facts, and make the decision based on logic and reason, not just jerk our knee in reaction.
In this particular case, the fact is that about 1 in One Million Americans are killed by a rifle, so banning rifles, much less a particular type of rifle would have negligible or no effect on anything. The problem is not the means by which a life is taken, but the person who takes the life. As the trend in China demonstrates, evil, or psychotic individuals if you prefer, will use the weapons on hand to commit violence. In their case, is mass stabbings at schools, since that is the weapon to which they have access, and all guns are banned.
And if the government banned cars, more people would be killed in horse accidents.
In the practice of special counter-drug patrols, cars and semi-trucks are pulled over on excuses of small infractions. The targets have out of state license plates. They are then "asked" if they will allow a search of their vehicle. (Just say NO!) The police are looking for cash. The cash is then seized on the suspicion that it is drug profits. The driver is pushed to deny ownership to make the legal proceedings simpler. The cash is then kept by the law enforcement agencies involved in seizing it. If the Citizen wants his money back, the prosecutor's office requires them to fight for it, with lawyers, sometimes for years, at considerable cost.
While it was Tennessee's journalists that uncovered it here, these shakedowns are not just happening here. News Channel 5, WSMV, Nashville has been investigating the illegal seizures of property for two years, since the Institute for Justice came out with their report. What they found was an abuse of power, greed, and corruption. It is clear from the words of those in power, those stealing from The People, that it is a breach of the Constitution. The people of Tennessee are outraged over it, even though the police are targeting guests of our great state.
The Institute of Justice points out that this practice is happening elsewhere. It includes Michigan, Texas, and Georgia in its reports as being worse than Tennessee, and more than half the Nation gets graded at least as bad. It found that in 2008, more than $1 Billion had been seized from individual Citizens and was being held by the Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund.
Download Inst for Justice - Policing for Profit
I encourage you to watch the video series. The defense of the practice by prosecutors and police officers should enrage you. When a police officer says "he didn't prove it wasn't drug money," it demonstrates a practice of "guilty until proven innocent."
"It is illegal to have proceeds." [of criminal activity], District Attorney General Kim Helper. The "fact that no one ever claimed the money proves it was illegal."
"The doctrine of in rem forfeiture arose from Medieval ideas, rooted in the ancient law of “deodand.”Kings, for instance, could seize an instrument that caused the death of another in order to finance the deceased’s funeral mass.The idea arose from a superstitious belief that objects acted independently to cause death." Policing for Profit, Institute of Justice
There is nothing illegal about using and/or having cash. I understand that in today's world few people use cash, but short of gold and silver, paper currency is still the closest thing to real money.
Constitutionally, it is the burden of the prosecutor and police to prove guilt in a crime, not the accused to prove innocence. This fundamental premise must be upheld in law, in legislation, and in practice.
Constitutionally, you and your property cannot be searched without proof of cause. It cannot be seized without Warrant.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall NOT be violated.." 4th Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution
".. nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 5th Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution
If you are pulled over and asked to forfeit your Rights, i.e., "Can we look in your vehicle?" Just say NO! It may be the practice, but it is un-Constitutional, for the government to presume you are guilty because you retain your rights.
What should happen now? The Governor and Legislature of Tennessee should act to remove the excuse for unlawful search and seizure. The Judges should clamp down on the practice and protect the Constitution they swore to uphold. And beginning with the DAG Kim Helper, and including every official uncovered in Channel 5's investigation, demonstrating the corrupt and un-Constitutional "justification" for these roadside shakedowns should be fired, and stripped of any chance of ever being in a position of authority again. Ms. Helper should be disbarred.
And Citizens of other States should press for their governments to do the same. I'm all for seizing the finances of criminal organizations, but that money is not guilty of anything. The owner of the money must be proven to have gained it through criminal activity, before it can be seized.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is reported to be in “critical but stable condition” after having been hospitalized for a stroke.
Mr. Talabani's office said he was taken to a Baghdad hospital late Monday and that the 79-year-old president remained under intensive medical supervision after treatment for blocked arteries.
The Iraqi president has dealt with several health problems in recent years. In 2008, he underwent heart surgery in the United States. He made a 2007 visit to a U.S. clinic for weight loss treatment, and the same year spent more than two weeks in Jordan receiving treatment for exhaustion and dehydration.
The president's role in Iraq is largely ceremonial, but Mr. Talabani, an ethnic Kurd, has used his position to mediate disputes among the country's various ethnic and religious groups. VoA.
The Iraqi Presidency does not have equivalent powers to a US President. In Iraq, the Prime Minister holds primary executive powers, similiar to the United Kingdom or Germany.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has suffered a concussion after fainting at home, according to the State Department.
A statement Saturday from Philippe Reines, deputy assistant secretary of state, says that while suffering from a stomach virus, Clinton became dehydrated and fainted.
Reines says she is recovering at home. He says at the recommendation of her doctors, she will continue to work from home next week, while staying in regular contact with State Department and other officials.
Clinton canceled plans this week to travel to the Middle East and north Africa because of her stomach virus.
The secretary of state and former U.S. first lady is 65 years old. VoA.
As we race towards the "Financial Cliff," there is a lot of tough talk, and while the word "compromise" is thrown around a lot, there is little compromise in the talk. While "negotiation" is used, those discussing how to do it seem inept at the principals of negotiation.
Compromise does not mean that you get everything you want, or that you give the other side everything they want. It means that the result is equally uncomfortable and equally agreeable to both sides in the end. It means you have to give up something you want to get some you want.
Negotiations do not begin by giving away your cards before you start in hopes that the other side will give them back to you when you have nothing they value, later. If the House of Representatives gives up their negotiating points in December in hopes they'll be approved in July, they'll get nothing in July, in 2013, or in 2014.
If the POTUS were as strong in negotiations with foreign enemies, if he were as demanding in "diplomacy" with non-allies, as he is with the Representatives the American People elected to Congress, and the allies who have stood by us throughout the centuries, the Administration would not be calling this "the end of the American Century." Instead, his political appointees in the Defense Department are noticing that China will outspend us militarily in a few years, as the Administration continues to call for spending cuts on Defense. It notes that China, India, and others will become greater economic powers than the US, and rather than doing something to stop this, accepts it.
"Elections have consequences," is a true statement, but it isn't so easy to say why people pulled the lever for one or another person or party. The people re-elected pretty much everyone, including the House of Representatives, which Constitutionally controls the purse-strings, i.e. Budgets, Taxes, and Spending, as well as the "debt limit." There are many people who voted for the POTUS because his challenger was considered boring, just as there were people who voted for Boehner because he has demonstrated his "sensitive side."
In 2012, two videos achieved notoriety. One demonstrated the atrocities of Islamists in Egypt against Christians and spotlighted the precedents of the "prophet's" behavior in child molestation, and murder of civilians, war crimes, tyranny, and terrorism, as written in their holy book. The other was of an Asian in a dance he "created" which mimics the actions of a cowboy riding a horse.
One of the artistic creators was invited to perform for President Obama. The other was jailed by agents of the President.
But these men have a history. One is a refugee of Islamist abuses in Egypt while the other called for the torture of those following the orders of a previous President, following the orders of the American People. These are the 2004 words of one of the artists:
“Kill those f–ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives.” “Kill those f–ing Yankees who ordered them to torture.” “Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers” “Kill them all slowly and painfully.” Psy
One was accused of hate crimes and of inspiring violence around the world. The other was given photo-ops with the Royal, er, First Family. One has lived under threat to life and family and the other espoused that the families and children of others be tortured. One has been threatened with death and the other has called for the death of innocents. Both have American citizenship. Both have attained the attention of the Emperor, er President.
You know what, I don't give a dayum about an apology 8 years after the fact from the rapper. He has a 'right' to say what he does and I have a right to invite him to move to North Korea where his anti-American antics will get him celebrity status in a kingdom where subjects must express gratitude for every grain of rice they receive, from their Communist god-king.
But since the POTUS is so good and experienced with apologies, I do call on him to apologize for his actions, for his rewarding of and embracing a man who called for the rape, torture, and murder of Americans, and their children. He can't claim ignorance. It was well known who and what it was before he met with him. And he can't claim lack of authority. He has used the power of the office to uninvite others to functions he has attended, as well as having the symbols of Christianity covered in his presence.
It would be nice for him to apologize for his own misdeeds for a change, instead of for the successes of America, and for the hard road American Troops have taken to free the people of foreign lands of tyrants.
His apology doesn't mean I'll forget his actions, nor that I'll forgive him for embracing the one that called for torture and jailing the one that complained of oppression, but it is the right thing, for him to do.
I'm not alone in my disgust with the actions of the POTUS in this. Fellow Veterans reported the story first, over at This Ain't Hell.
How can the American people not see what their politicians are doing? How can they continue to elect politicians that are eroding their Freedoms? How can they fall for the same old tricks?
Americans today are more educated than they ever have been. Americans are an intelligent people. Historically, we are a hard-working and hardy people, that can overcome any enemy and any hardship. We have a tradition of seeing through the BS and making the right decision.
But, in today's world, many people are parroting the talking points of political parties without thought. Partisans are more concerned with which political party will be hurt more by sending us over "the financial cliff," than with how it will effect Americans. They are more concerned with pushing through partisan programmes than with the Constitutionality of those plans.
In one of the most classic of "a lie repeated often enough.." many Americans will often cite "a separation of church and state" as being a part of the Constitution, while that phrase is found no where in the Constitution, but rather is a part of the Communist Manifesto. And the courts and protestors continue to act on the misquote, while ignoring the actual words of the Constitution, of the 2nd Amendment that prohibit laws preventing "the free exercise thereof," of religion.
How can Americans not comprehend the importance of the US Constitution? Because their attention has been diverted to Hollywood. They have been entertained by the movies, by the antics of Hollywierdos, by starlets and harlots, to the point that Hollywood ran out of ideas and told Americans to entertain themselves with video games. Meanwhile, the mudslinging of political campaigns has become so repetitive and deceitful that its entertainment value is nil and its disgust value is maxed out. We've fallen prey to advertising slogans while failing to look below the surface of what the commercials claim the ruling class is doing.
"A wise Hebrew prophet once said 'No man liveth unto himself alone.' " Henry Noble Sherwood. Preface, Civics and Citizenship, Bobbs-Merrill: Indianpolis, 1934, a school textbook
Part IV of the textbook discusses government, including the US Constitution, its Amendments, as well as state and local governments. Chapter IX discusses "The Unfortunate Members" of Society, including the deaf or blind, the impoverished, and the mentally infirm, and civic responsibilities, through charity and community, at the local level, to help them. It goes on to define idiots, imbeciles, and morons. The point is that kids used to learn about the Constitution, as well as their responsibilities as a Citizen, in school. By law (PL 108-447, section 111, 2004), every educational institution that receives federal funding must teach the Constitution on the 17th of September, along with every Federal Agency, but both ignore the law.
The Civic duties of learning, knowing, and understanding the US Constitution have been removed from the educational system, replaced by political correctness, embedding the morals of the state, and preaching the tenets of environmentalism.
Politicians and parties will openly propagandize that "the Constitution is an outdated 200 year old document," while ignoring the Supreme Law of the Land. Their opposition will deny that it is "a living document," because the living concept of it, the Constitutional means of Amendment to it, is being ignored by those that are subverting it. And though the lie is oft repeated by party and partisan, rarely can any of the propagandists point to any clause that is outdated, or impertinent, because they don't know or don't care what it actually says. The Constitution is not a "living document" in that it can be overridden by politicians and legislative judges, but because it has the means built in to amend it, if the world changes around it.
It is only through ignorance of the importance and supremacy of the US Constitution, through ignorance of what is written in it, through ignorance of why the Founding Fathers wrote what they did, that voters allow partisan politics to ignore and erode the Rights and Freedoms of the People, from which all governing authority derives.
The Constitution is the law of how the US Government functions, and for what reason. It limits the scope of authority. The Bill of Rights further restricts that government, preserving the God-given Rights of Citizens in the face of that government. Those Rights are derived of "a higher power" than government, and hence not within the authority of government to remove, but they are guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically by the Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court is set to rule soon on the "Constitutionality" of Constitutional Amendments to State Constitutions, in what is clearly a state government authority: definitions of marriage. There is only one possible Constitutional ruling: an amendment to a state Constitution is Constitutional unless the US Constitution spells it out as a federal authority, i.e. each state has jurisdiction over marital law. That is why it would take an amendment to the US Constitution in order for the Federal government to enter the legislative process of defining marriage. Neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court, has any authority to create a law defining who can or can't "get married."
Congress does have the Constitutional authority, as an employer, to determine how and to whom it pays employee benefits, but not how the States define marriage. The Supreme Court does have authority to rule on whether or not those State Constitutional amendments are reflected legally in state laws, but not to overturn State Constitutions in regards to contract law, i.e. marital contract law, based on the US Constitution, because the US Constitution gives the federal government no authority on the matter.
The Federal Government does have the authority to levy an income tax, because of Constitutional Amendment, but it does not have the authority to tell a property owner to do or not do anything on his land, nor the authority to compel Individuals to purchase anything.
The supremacy of State Government in matters of domestic affairs is an implicit division of power within the US Constitution. This is as important for the subjects of Massachusetts and California, that want state run health insurance, as it is for the Citizens of Texas and Tennessee that don't. It means that both groups can get what they want, and the US Constitution bars the federal government and Congress and the President from legislating that Texans pay for Californian's health care, or preventing New Yorkers from voting in state run health care.
It means that businesses and people are free to "vote with their feet" and move from those states that strangle their financial success and upward mobility, to those states that fertilize it.
The benefits of small government are such that citizens are setting up private small government at the lowest levels. I'm referring to "Home Owner Associations," which are not unlike the roles of city governments, but as governed by mutual consent and more restrictive/invasive than municipal government. It is by mutual contract that the residents of an HOA has authority. By mutual contract, the property owner gives up rights of ownership of his own property, in order to control the activities of his neighbor.
And it is by mutual contract that the Citizens of the Individual States gives authority to the Federal government. But that mutual contract is the US Constitution, and it gives no authority to the Federal government, or its politicians to domestic governance. It gives no authority for treaties with the UN or Communist China to remove the authority of State Governments in domestic affairs, as the US Constitution retains all governance not given the federal government to the State Government, and it holds the US Constitution as supreme over all treaties.
But for every time that you insist or approve of a removal of the rights of your neighbor, you are also removing your own rights. And for everytime that you support the erosion of the US Constitution by your politicians, or fail to oppose it, you also support the erosion of your own Rights, as given by God, and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. And while it may be things you think good being compelled on others in the moment, it may be things your ideological opponents consider good pushed on you later.
If your politicians compel me to buy health insurance I don't want today, my politicians may compel you to buy a modern firearm for defense of the Nation tomorrow. If your politicians insist that I maintain a proper exercise and diet routine today, my politicians have as much, if not more authority, to insist on you maintaining a proper marksmanship program at the firing range tomorrow. If there is a compulsion for me to get a vaccination to extend an umbrella of "protection" to those around me, then there is an equally valid argument that you maintain firearms, ammunition, and training to extend an umbrella of protection for your neighbors from criminals, terrorists, and foreign invasion.
It is your duty, as a Citizen, to know what the US Constitution says, and to understand why, to hold your politicians accountable, to defend my Rights, even when you don't like what I say, just as it is my duty to defend your Rights, even when I don't like what you're saying. It is your Responsibility to do so, before you exercise your right to vote, so that you can vote without ignorance.
A New York judge says a settlement has been reached in the lawsuit filed against former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn by a hotel maid who accused him of sexual assault.
The judge announced the deal Monday, at a hearing on settlement negotiations between the sides.
Strauss-Kahn, a Socialist French economist and politician, was arrested in May 2011 after the hotel maid, Nafissatou Diallo, accused him of sexually assaulting her when she went to clean his room at a luxury New York hotel. Prosecutors later dropped the criminal charges against Strauss-Kahn, saying Diallo "would not be a credible witness."
The revelation forced Strauss-Kahn to resign his IMF post and derailed his candidacy for the French presidency. He still faces unrelated sexual crime charges in France that he was involved in arranging parties between wealthy men and prostitutes. A court will rule on that case later this month. VoA..
President Barack Obama says nuclear terrorism is still one of the world's greatest security threats, despite success in cutting U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles.
Mr. Obama said Monday that terrorists and criminal gangs are doing everything to get their hands on nuclear, biological and chemical materials. He said these materials are being stored without enough protection.
He said the world cannot allow the 21st century to be darkened by the worst weapons of the 20th century.
Mr. Obama also called for an updated agreement with Russia, which has announced it will not renew its participation in the Nunn-Lugar pact — the 20-year-old law that eliminates nuclear missiles and chemical weapon stockpiles in the former Soviet Union.
President Obama said that thanks to Nunn-Lugar, thousands of missiles, bombers and submarines have been destroyed or deactivated.
The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program was the brainchild of former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn and retiring Republican Senator Richard Lugar. VoA.
A U.S. Army analyst, charged in the largest security breach in U.S. military history, has taken the stand for the first time in a pre-trial hearing on his detention conditions.
Bradley Manning testified Thursday about restrictions he endured while in custody at an army base in Kuwait and later in Quantico, Virginia (near Washington). During his three-hour testimony, Manning complained the time he spent alone in his cell was draining. He claimed there were times he thought he was going to die.
Manning downloaded thousands of diplomatic cables and other Top Secret material onto compact discs that were sent to the anti-American website WikiLeaks. He has offered to accept responsibility for the leak by pleading guilty to reduced charges. A decision on that offer has not been made.
The defendant has said that while at Quantico he was locked up alone in a windowless cell for 23 hours a day and forced to sleep naked. The military notes the treatment was necessary because he posed a suicide risk. Manning made multiple threats of suicide, including to hang himself by his underwear waistband.
Lawyers for Manning are asking for his charges to be dropped, saying the pretrial conditions were harsh enough. Manning has claimed that he was too gay to be given a Security Clearance in the first place, much less access to classified material. Prior to Clinton's DADT policy, homosexuals were denied a security clearance or entry into the military.
Manning could spend the rest of his life in prison if found guilty.
The leaked diplomatic cables and military reports, published by WikiLeaks starting in July 2010, infuriated the international community, often providing blunt and unflattering U.S. views of world leaders' private and public lives and placing the lives of Iraqi and Afghani, as well as US Soldiers and Dipomats in danger.
U.S. officials say WikiLeaks' publication of the stolen documents put lives in danger, threatened national security and undermined U.S. efforts to work with other countries. VoA.
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr., AFPS, WASHINGTON, Nov. 26, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has yet to forward a recommendation to the White House on how many U.S. troops should remain in Afghanistan after 2014, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today.
"It's entirely premature to speculate on troop numbers in Afghanistan between now and the end of 2014 or beyond," he said. "In September, we completed the full withdrawal of the 33,000 surge troops, and we will soon begin considering how we move forward on further troop level adjustments which will include planning for our post-2014 military and civilian presence in Afghanistan."
Little told reporters the defense secretary will speak tomorrow with Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, to discuss a "range of matters on Afghanistan."
Pentagon officials have asked for options to be considered, relatively soon, for what the post-2014 presence might look like, Little said.
"As we've made clear on several occasions, any U.S. presence would only be at the invitation of the Afghan government, and aimed at training Afghan forces and targeting the remnants of al-Qaida," he said.
"Ultimately, it will be the president's call," he said. "[President Barack Obama] will make decisions on these issues in the near future based on what's in our national interests, as "he has done in the past."
"He receives options from our military leaders on the situation on the ground," Little continued, "and considers the recommendations with his national security team, including [Panetta], in a consultation with the Afghan government and our international partners."
Separately, Little said, U.S. military leaders soon will present options to the Defense Department on further troop drawdowns for the coming year.
The United States says a conference on banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East will not be held because of current conditions in the region.
The announcement comes amid a flare up in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza, civil war in Syria and an unsettled political situation in Egypt.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Friday “a deep conceptual gap persists in the region” on how to handle regional security and arms control.
Nuland said the U.S. would not support a conference in which any regional state would be subjected to “pressure or isolation,” a reference to U.S. concerns that participants would gang up on Israel.
Iran and Arab states often say Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal poses a threat to Middle East peace and security. Israel and Western powers see Iran as the main nuclear proliferation threat. Tehran denies any atom bomb ambitions.
The meeting was to be held in Finland before the end of the year. VoA.
Protesters in several Egyptian cities have attacked the offices of the ruling Muslim Brotherhood, as rival pro- and anti-government groups demonstrate in Cairo about a new presidential decree.
The violence comes a day after Egyptian Islamist President Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, put himself above oversight and declared that his decisions cannot be appealed by the courts or any other authority. In a speech to Islamist supporters Friday at the presidential palace, Mr. Morsi said he wants to move Egypt "forward" as a stable and safe nation and does not want sole control of the country.
Thousands of opposition supporters, including liberal politician Mohamad ElBaradei, former head of the U.N. atomic energy agency, gathered in Tahrir Square on Friday to protest the president's decision, while police fired tear gas at the crowds. El-Baradei has accused the president of making himself a “new pharaoh” by taking on so much power.
In the cities of Port Said, Ismailia, and Alexandria, crowds of protesters lobbed stones and explosives and set fire to Muslim Brotherhood offices. In Alexandria, people were seen tossing papers and other objects out office windows, while a party banner hanging on the wall of a building had been ripped nearly in half. The protesters chanted, “The people want the fall of the regime.” At least a dozen people were injured.
Earlier reports said the Muslim Brotherhood offices in Suez were also burned, but state television later retracted that report.
Mr. Morsi's decree also bars Egypt's judiciary from dissolving the upper house of parliament and an assembly drafting a new constitution — two bodies dominated by Mr. Morsi's Islamist allies.
In addition, Mr. Morsi has ordered retrials of former officials who he accuses of using violence in efforts to suppress last year's revolution against president Hosni Mubarak.
A presidential spokesman said the moves were made "to end a deadlock" in Cairo on forming a new constitution and "moving the country forward."
Egyptian courts have been examining cases demanding the dissolution of both assemblies. But Mr. Morsi's decree effectively neutralizes the judiciary system in favor of his ruling Muslim Brotherhood.
The announced retrials for those suspected of involvement in the killings of protesters during the 2011 uprising, could include a retrial of former president Hosni Mubarak. The ousted leader was sentenced to life in prison in June for failing to stop the killings. But he was acquitted on more serious offenses of corruption and ordering the deadly crackdown, angering many Egyptians.
Other Mubarak-era officials and security personnel also have been acquitted on charges of killing protesters, prompting critics in the new government to accuse the top government prosecutor of mishandling the cases. In his decree Thursday, Mr. Morsi fired that prosecutor, Abdel-Maguid Mahmoud, a Mubarak appointee who had been in the post for many years. The decree retroactively limited Mahmoud's term to four years, bringing it to an immediate end.
President Morsi had tried to fire Mahmoud last month but was blocked by the courts. He named Talat Abdullah as the government's new general prosecutor. VoA.
Longtime US Ally, Hosni Mubarrak resigned after the Obama Administration urged military leaders to take over in a coup d'etat, if he refused orders by the White House to step aside. The US Administration then pressed for elections before non-Islamist parties could establish an organization to compete in the elections.
On 9/11/2012, Egyptian Security Forces failed to maintain security in the Embassy District as Islamist party supported protestors invaded the US Embassy there, desecrating the US Flag, and raising the black flag of Al-Qaeda over the Embassy.
Egypt's opposition has called for protests Friday after President Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, put himself above oversight and declared that his decisions cannot be appealed by the courts or any other authority.
President Morsi's spokesman announced the decree Thursday, citing a need to “protect the revolution.” Opposition members have called the move illegal.
The decree also bars Egypt's judiciary from dissolving the upper house of parliament and an assembly drafting a new constitution — two bodies dominated by Mr. Morsi's Islamist allies.
In addition, Mr. Morsi has ordered retrials of former officials who he accuses of using violence in efforts to suppress last year's Islamist revolution against president Hosni Mubarak.
Mr. Morsi's supporters say his decree was long overdue. But Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei said Mr. Morsi has usurped all state powers, warning that there could be dire consequences. The liberal politician is a leading opposition figure in Egypt and a former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The president's action comes after he received international praise for mediating a Gaze cease-fire.
Egyptian courts have been examining cases demanding the dissolution of both assemblies. But Mr. Morsi's decree effectively neutralizes the judiciary system in favor of the ruling Muslim Brotherhood.
The announced retrials for those suspected of involvement in the killings of protesters during the 2011 uprising, could include a retrial of former president Hosni Mubarak. The ousted leader was sentenced to life in prison in June for failing to stop the killings. But, he avoided convictions on more serious offenses of corruption and ordering the deadly crackdown, angering many Egyptians.
Other Mubarak-era officials and security personnel also have been acquitted on charges of killing protesters, prompting critics to accuse the top government prosecutor of mishandling the cases. In his decree Thursday, Mr. Morsi fired that prosecutor, Abdel-Maguid Mahmoud, a Mubarak appointee who had been in the post for many years. The decree retroactively limited Mahmoud's term to four years, bringing it to an immediate end.
President Morsi had tried to fire Mahmoud last month but was blocked by the courts. He named Talat Abdullah as the government's new general prosecutor. VoA.
By Cheryl Pellerin, AFPS, ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Nov. 13, 2012 - The Defense Department inspector general has opened an investigation of Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said today in a statement.
The statement said the FBI referred a matter involving Allen to the Defense Department on Nov. 11.
Today, Panetta directed that the matter be referred to the DOD IG for investigation and informed the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The House Armed Services Committee also has been notified, he said.
"While the matter is under investigation and before the facts are determined, General Allen will remain ISAF commander," the secretary said.
"His leadership has been instrumental in achieving the' significant progress' that ISAF, working alongside our Afghan partners, has made in bringing greater security to the Afghan people," Panetta added, "and in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists. He is entitled to due process in this matter."
Allen took over as ISAF commander and commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in July 2011. President Barack Obama recently nominated him to succeed Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis as commander of U.S. European Command and as NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe.
Obama also nominated Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., now assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, to succeed Allen in Afghanistan. Panetta said he has asked the president, who has agreed, to put Allen's nomination on hold until the relevant facts are determined.
The secretary also said he has asked the ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee – Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, and Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona -- that they delay tomorrow's scheduled confirmation hearing on Allen's pending nomination.
"I respectfully requested that the Senate act promptly on [Dunford's] nomination," Panetta added.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 2012 - The Defense Department released a timeline yesterday of the Pentagon's response to the September attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
A senior defense official, speaking on background with Pentagon reporters, emphasized:
"With naval, Marine, special operations and air forces either employed or en route to Libya during the attacks, we responded," the official said. "We mourn the loss of four American heroes in Benghazi."
The attack on the U.S. consulate began at 3:42 p.m. EDT [9:42 p.m. Benghazi time]. By 5:10 EDT an unarmed surveillance aircraft was on station over the Benghazi compound. By 5:30 p.m., all surviving Americans had left the consulate, the official noted, adding that defense officials didn't have that information until later. At 6:30 p.m. EDT, according to the timeline, a six-person security team, including two DOD members, left the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli for Benghazi. By 8:39 p.m., the official said, the command center had started issuing written orders for the forces the secretary had alerted. [Four hours after the attack started.] At 11 p.m. EDT, the official said, a second unmanned, unarmed surveillance aircraft relieved the first, and at 11:15 p.m. -- around 5 a.m. Sept. 12 in Benghazi -- the second U.S. facility there, an annex near the consulate, came under mortar and rocket-propelled grenade fire. By 1:40 a.m. EDT Sept. 12, the first wave of Americans left Benghazi for Tripoli by airplane, with the second wave, including the bodies of the fallen, following at 4 a.m. A C-17 aircraft, under Africom direction, flew the evacuees from Tripoli to Germany later that day, the official said.
In the Middle East and North Africa on Sept. 11, the official added, U.S. facilities in more than 16 countries were operating on a heightened force-protection level, based on specific threats. [Which would warrant at least 2-4 FAST and/or Special Operations teams being on standby, ready to fly.]
"I would note ... that there was no specific or credible threat that we knew of on the day that the attacks ... occurred in Benghazi," the official said. "Unfortunately, no alternative or additional aircraft options were available within ... [enough time] to be effective," the official said. [If a slow moving drone could get on target within 2 hours and be replaced 6 hrs later, a fast moving fighter, which also should have been on standby, considering the wideranging threats, could have made it there in less time. Defenders, on the ground, were painting the attacking mortars for strikes.]
The DOD timeline records that in the first hours following the initial attack, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conferred first with the president, and shortly after with senior officials including Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, who leads U.S. Africa Command. [Within hours!?!?!]
During those meetings, the official said, Panetta verbally ordered two fleet antiterrorism security team, or FAST, platoons to prepare to deploy from their base in Rota, Spain. The secretary also issued verbal prepare-to-deploy orders for a U.S. European Command special operations force then training in Central Europe and a second special operations force based in the United States.
[But dithering by Obama and Panetta resulted in no re-inforcements arriving to assist in the defense of Our Diplomats.]
The official noted the Pentagon's National Military Command Center staff, within hours of the attack, began planning support and contingency operations with transportation and special operations experts, as well as with representatives from the four services and Africa, Europe and Central commands. [When bullets are flying, the time for "planning" is over. It's time to act, not analyze, not plan, not talk. It is time to decide and act.]
The Pentagon has announced plans to sell $6.7 billion in military aircraft and other equipment to Saudi Arabia.
The sale would include 20 C-130 cargo planes and five refueling aircraft.
The Pentagon says Saudi Arabia requested the planes. Officials say the sale would contribute to U.S. national security by helping improve the security of a friendly country. They call Saudi Arabia an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The Pentagon also says the Saudi fleet is becoming obsolete and needs modernization.
For a few bucks more you can get a signed copy from the author himself! http://www.deltabravosierra.us/2011/02/10/a-word-about-the-new-book/comment-page-1/#comment-3383
Get your copy of this legendary cartoon now (or wait a few days for the signed copy!)
Go to War against the Nazis with SSG Smith of the 94th Infantry Division. Review: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/04/everymans-war-vet.html.html
Ace Of Spades: Why Language Matters In this article, Ace of Spades demonstrates how the writing style of "journalists" and other writers is purposely used to influence the electorate. He explains this far better than I have been able to do, but this is the foundation of why I could no longer be silent.
This is the document that clearly authorizes what the Federal government is allowed to do, what authorities and responsibilities the separate entities of the Government have. It is what Our Troops swear to defend and what our politicians and judges have sworn to uphold:
It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.
Stumble It!
Recent Comments