Perspectives

Restoring Liberty: What will it take?

I've pondered this question a lot over the years, but discussed it with a greater diversity of people in recent days and weeks.  For the observant, what is surprising is not that Liberty has been eroded and the Constitution ignored, but that this has accelerated so greatly in the last 4 years, and the People themselves have not pushed back.  For the observant, the erosion of Constitution and Liberty has been a plan and an effort executed throughout decades, not simply a few electoral terms.

I've seen many arguments over the years for the means of restoration of the Constitution, arguments that ranged from outright revolution, terrorist style attacks, targeted assassinations, civil disobedience, protests, occupations of lands, Constitutional testing of political candidates, banning of certain political ideologies, banning of one political party or another, or both, or all, and election or installation of certain politicians or persons.

The one thing that any plan to change the powermongers and policies of Washington must include is: What happens in the election following the success? 

If every politician working against the Constitution were removed tomorrow, what would happen in Novembers of 2014 and 2016?  A new face with the same politics would replace those removed.  Why? Because the same voters would vote for the same type of politician for the same reasons they voted for this crop.  The names and faces would change, but the personalities would endure.  It is inevitable, assuming that those running the plan of change are true supporters of the Constitution.  And it is a predictable, natural event, that those that seek office will be the type to wish to expand the power they attain there.

Why is it inevitable? Because the main component that puts those politicians in office is the ballot box.  One can blame the campaign war chests of politicians, incumbents, political parties, and PAC's, and the rich donors behind them, but the reality is that all the advertising in the world does not force a voter to pull the lever for one person or party or the other.  The money is just the means to the advertising which is the means of convincing the Individual that one person is better or worse than the other.

If the mind of populace remains unchanged, then the politicians they put in office will remain the same.  Throughout the years, various groups and parties have campaigned for or against certain policies and politics and politicians, and occassionally even gotten a few elected, but in the best years, the erosion has only been slowed, and never truly turned back, and in the worst years 2009-10, it has been accelarated into a mudslide.

Hence, the key to restoring Liberty and the Constitutional Republic rests on the electorate becoming convicted that it is the best means of governance for themselves and the Nation.

A political party is not, in and of itself, good or evil.  A politician should not be voted for, or against, solely based on the letter behind his name.  The party platform should serve as a general concept by which an initial judgment of the candidates' positions, but in the Constitutional Republic, the candidate should represent the interests of his constituents, not the party, so, Democrat from Berkeley should have far different positions than a Democrat from lower Alabama.  Once upon a time, this reality was noted with the term "Blue Dog Democrats." 

In today's reality, the Blue Dogs are extinct.  They were beaten into line and strangled by the choke collar of Nancy Pelosi during the 2009-10 Congress.  On the other side of the aisle are progressive Republicans, like  Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, and Chris Christie.  Where their votes represent their constituents, as in New Jersey, the fact that they often oppose their own party is not the problem.  The problem is that their constituents are supporting policies that are against the Constitution.  Where those votes are against the wishes of their constituents, as in Lamar Alexander, the party and tendency of party members to conform to the wishes of an established powermonger is the problem.  Just because he has an R behind his name does not mean he supports small government and Individual Rights. 

In the latter case, a good educational campaign of the voting record of the Senator should see him primaried out.  Yes, he has an insurmountable campaign war chest.  No opponent will have a chance to outspend him, but again, money does not determine effectiveness of a campaign.  If his opponent will turn to youtube, rather than attempt to duke it out on TV ads, he can beat him, soundly.  If he'll use facebook, twitter, and blogs, rather than newspaper ads, he'll get his message out and surprise the incumbent.  But that campaign cannot conform to the old standards.  It has to be creative enough to be spread by an entertained populace, and clear enough that voters know where he stands, without wandering out into some wierd conspiracy theory, or an unacceptable specific that is unsupported by the People.

The truth is that most voters tune out of the campaign weeks before the election.  In October, the inundation of attack ads will make watching TV near unbearable.  Yet, even now, the MSM is already attempting to determine the candidates of 2016.  They're giving positive press to the ones they favor and exposing "scandals" of those they disdain.  In the Presidential election, they've chosen Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton.  This isn't a surprise, the MSM is based out of the Northeast, and those candidates represent the possibles that are closest to those politics.  To believe the MSM, one must believe that Ronald Reagan would be unelectable today, and accept that John McCain and Mitt Romney have reasonable chances.  Afterall, those were the MSM's choices in the last two elections.

But, what do voters vote on, particularly, if they are tuning out before the end of the campaign?  Generally a few soundbytes.  Numerous bad politicians have gotten elected because their campaigns (or the MSM that supported them) were able to find one damning phrase uttered by the opponent.  Added to that is a very effective propaganda campaign by the progressives.  Factually incorrect propaganda extends all the way down to the very first exposure of children to the "education" system and is witnessed in social media as blatant repetition of big lies, repeated often.

This propaganda campaign instills "morals" that run counter to the beliefs of the parents, and preaches a "social justice," which sounds compassionate, but maintains the erosion of Individual Liberty.  It sells the invasion of privacy of the Sovereign Citizen, as a government responsibility necessary to protect the populace from terror and criminal.  Who would not want a hungry child to eat, a sick child to be treated, and an abused child to be saved from his abuser?  Would you not consent to the government reading everything on your computer, if it meant the removal of all child abusers from the populace?  It's such a compelling argument, as long as you aren't a child abuser, and it is an argument that is coming in the future.

As an example of the propaganda machine, The progressives stubbornly repeat that ObamaCare, aka the ACA, is a success because 1.1 Million people have signed up, under the threat of government fines.  They insist that it is a "good thing," that men now have maternity insurance, despite the biological reality that men are incapable of becoming pregnant.  And they gloss over the fact that 5+ Million Americans have lost health insurance as a result of the ObamaCare regulations, and the organizations, such as Unions, that donated to Obama's campaign have been exempted from those same regulations, while the Catholic Church has been ordered to pay for insurance that is against their core religious beliefs. 

The fact that health insurance costs considerably more today than it did in 2008 is barely mentioned, and ObamaCare is structured to hide much of that increase while making it visible only to the minority of "rich" people, whom few have compassion for.  ObamaCare's financing is hinged in forcing at least 2.7 Million healthy youth into paying the costs of health care they won't use.  It hides the rising costs in subsidies, paid for by taxes of others, and funded from the generic income taxes of the recipient.  When those taxes are increased, it won't be marketed as funding your individual health care, but rather as paying down the ever increasing deficit.  ObamaCare increases the upfront costs to the consumer, of not only the premium, but also the deductible.  What you pay directly for health care would actually cover the costs of paying the Doctor directly, and the insurance portion is far higher than the costs of those catastrophic events which insurance is designed to cover begins.

In 2008, voters were sold on the concept that "the government" could provide "free health care" to the impoverished, by reducing costs through increasing the number of people buying it and decreasing the number using it without paying for it.  Those with a hint of understanding of how finances, business, insurance, and economics work clearly pointed out that the reality would be far different than the advertising.

The "social justice" of a compelling idea that people should not be denied health care solely based on their financial assets worked.  What was ignored was the un-Constitutional mandate that Individual Citizens had no Right to say, "No, I don't want to buy that product."  Those that didn't want to buy insurance were portrayed as uncaring, and the problem.  It was not portrayed that these problem people were hardworking families that were scrapping by to put food on the table, but rather that such people were abusing the system by not paying their own medical bills at the emergency rooms. 

Another example of the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, as well as the difficulty of those that love Liberty in countering it, is "the Tea Party."  Both the RNC and DNC have felt its wrath, which means the establishment politics of Washington will fight it.  The RNC will abandon it on a cold winter night in the middle of the wilderness, while the DNC will continue to malign it with false accusations. 

The DNC conducted a research study to find out who made up the RNC supporters, and one of the large voter blocks was the Tea Party.  The study, conducted by James Carville's company, found that the Tea Party was ambivalent about abortion, had absolutely zero racist speech, and to its core supported the Rights of the Individual.  Yet, progressive propagandists will continue to allege the Tea Party is racist, and any black member of it, an "Uncle Tom," and that the Tea Party wants to ban abortion of rape victims, and ban women from wearing shoes, so they can be restrained to cooking buns in the ovens of their kitchens.

As purveyors of Individual Liberty, the Tea Party was found to be more likely to support gay marriage than oppose it, but the DNC propaganda machine, will continue to attack it as anti-gay and wanting to criminalize what you do in your bedroom.

Why is the Tea Party unable to effectively counter these accusations?  Because it is made up of Individuals who refuse to be forced to conform to the dictates of a party.  As Individuals, they believe in Liberty, but have varied beliefs on individual policies to support Liberty.  As Individuals that examine each issue on its own merits, and refuse to be herded, they reject self-proclaimed leaders with an agenda of personal power.  The leaderless aspect of the Tea Party is one of the most frustrating issues for both the DNC and the RNC.  As soon as the DNC finds a leader to attack, the Tea Party withdraws support from the individual, while as soon as the RNC finds a leader to subvert into an unholy compromise, the Tea Party turns on him.

If the Tea Party is to be led, it cannot be led by one that strives to be "the Leader."  A leader willing to abandon principle as an expedient to politics and power will be trampled by the same mass of Individuals that had lifted him up.  That is not to say that a Leader of Liberty must be sinless or without flaw, but that he must be principled and full of integrity.  In fact, the Tea Party will likely hold the "perfect leader" in suspicion, necessary of proving himself in forthright speech, as human.  A leader of the Tea Party will necessarily be a true leader, who has been granted his position by the will of the led, rather than a power monger who has gained it by politicking, by coercion, and campaign.  A true leader will be accepted and drafted to that position, rather than working to achieve it.

When The People are returned to belief in Liberty, they will be inoculated from the propaganda of the intolerant party of "tolerance," and instead defend true tolerance.  True tolerance is not the suppression of free speech for those believe that certain things are immoral, but the belief that your neighbor has a right to do things you don't approve of, often times, immoral, on his own property.

What will it take to Restore Liberty?  It will take a Congress that systematically examines every prior enactment of Congress, against the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution, and re-writes the entire body of laws to conform to it.  That is a monumental task, and throwing out one established career politician like Lamar Alexander, won't achieve it,or even set it in motion.  It will take a body of Congress that writes in plain English, rather than legalese, and that ends the practice of mixing the subjects of the legislation it passes.  And that means that not only the voters of Tennessee and Texas, but also the voters of Michigan and Minnesota send true Representatives of the People to Congress.

It will take wiping the slate clean of decades of "common law" rulings that have become the means of justifying the erosion of Individual Rights, as judges legislate from the bench with inpunity.  And that means that the partisan judges which favor authorianism over Liberty and the Constitution must be removed, by an objective and non-partisan means.  That is not easily achieved, and is even more difficult to maintain.  The very concept of a panel set up to remove judges from the bench smacks of subjective partisan politics.  It must be done though, and hence, an objective means of achieving it, with a panel composed of men of the greatest integrity to preside over it, must be found.  That means the means of doing so must be discussed and debated, and not simply implemented by a body of politicians.  It must be found to be objective and non-partisan by the People themselves.

But, before such a body of Representatives, rather than lawyer politicians, can be assembled, the People themselves much search from among themselves, and put candidates on the ballot.  Those candidates will necessarily be imperfect humans, and will have different viewpoints on some policies, but those candidates must have a common belief in Individual Liberty.  Those candidates should run in the primaries of all principal parties, Democrat, Republican, and Independent 3rd parties, but before the political powermongers can be thrown out, the People must return to a belief in the principles of Liberty, and a Constitutional Republic.

Related articles

What Were the Founding Fathers Thinking!?!?

My American flag is limp today

Democracies, Republics, and Human Dignity

Liberty Movement 2014 Election Challenge - The First Test

What does "We, The People" really mean?

Democracy and Freedom in America and the World

A Government Separated from the People Cannot Stand

The Rights & Responsibilities of the US Constitution

Disturbing Detention: Former Marine held for Facebook Rants

Liberia: MI Guard deploys to support Operation Observant Liberty

Taboo Topics: Religion, Politics, and Sex

Let's talk for a minute about morality, and hypocrisy; about religion and politics. Morality is not relative, nor should it be legislated.  Things are right or wrong.  They aren't right or wrong based on whether you like the person or not, or whether the person has the same political party as you, or even if they have the same religion as you.  Now, your beliefs will influence your morals, and if ...those morals are that homosexuality is fine or it is sinful, you are entitled to those beliefs, but it is hypocritical to say that it is fine for Democrats but wrong for Republicans.

And if you are a Christian, and you do believe that homosexuality is a sin, that is fine.  No one should attempt to force you to believe otherwise, or force you to perform same sex marriages.  But if you are Christian, you should recognize that all humans have sinned, and that sinners are loved by God.  While there are *some* in organized religion that would turn away a "sinning homosexual" from the church, the true Christian does not.

If you are a homosexual, I don't care what you do with consenting adults behind closed doors.  It doesn't involve me, but if a Christian tells you it is a sin, that might bring about eternity in hell, that is a result of their beliefs and morals, and hopes to give you the information to avoid such fate.  It is not their authority to condemn you to such fate.  And if you are an atheist and they warn you of the same, what do you care, you don't believe in Hell anyways.  You should be glad, like Penn, of Penn & Teller, that they care enough to warn you.

Now, I haven't seen a "Christian" out screaming such things in a long time, but if someone's out there doing such things, stop.  It isn't a Christian thing to do.  As Jesus said: "Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone."  He said you will known by your works, not by screaming at people or pretending that you're their judge.

But I promised you some politics.  If your political beliefs are such that racism is wrong, then it is hypocritical to attack a politician because their skin color doesn't meet your political party standards.  If your belief is that sexism is wrong, then it is hypocritical of you to attack a politician of the other party based on being successful as a mother and professional, in the other party.  If your political position is that homosexuality is fine, then it is wrong of you to attack a politician of the other party for engaging in it.  If your moral standard is that politicians shouldn't be sending nude pics to interns and (which is also illegal) minors, then when your politician does it, you must condemn it.  If your position is that politicians are also subject to the Law of the Land, then when your politician gets caught with cocaine, then you should join in the calls for his resignation.

If your position is reversed because the political party is reversed, then YOU are a hypocrite.  If your morals are relative to your agreement or admiration of the person in question, then you are a hypocrite.  If you demand that others respect your religious convictions, even if your religious convictions are atheism, but refuse to respect theirs, then you are a hypocrite.  If you call for the imprisonment or institutionalization of those who hold different political beliefs, because of those beliefs, while proclaiming that you have a Right to yours, then you are a hypocrite.

This Nation was founded on the God Given Rights of Individuals to form their own opinions and beliefs and to proclaim them in writing, in speech, and in the pulpit.  It is steeped in the belief that you have the right to persuade others to agree with your beliefs, but that you have no right to force them to accept them.  Even racist speech has value, because that speaker identifies his own personal stupidity.  Political Correct BS  does not change that idiotic bias.  It only hides it from view, allowing it to fester until it explodes in violence, or surfaces in the subservience of pity and the chains of dependency.  It is that political correctness over decades, which has brought a silent animosity of races, rather than an understanding of, and appreciation of, differences that would otherwise make us stronger as a Nation of Human Individuals, rather than weaker as groups of groups refusing to work with each other.

Christianity has at its core that only by Free Will can anyone be admitted, that only God can Judge the heart, and that no veneer of compassion, clothing, going to Church 10x a week, or false front of a righteous life will escape his judgment.  Hence, it doesn't matter how much I like or despise you, only God can stand as your Judge, in your heart and your eternity.  Hence, it does not matter how much you like or despise me, it is only my conscience which determines how well I sleep at night, and only he that judges my eternity.  It is my belief, that he will judge most harshly those that stood in the pulpit while living against his principles, than those that walked past those doors.

But, just as I Defend Your Right to form your own opinions, and to state them publicly, I do NOT cede my Right to the same, and to use that Right, at my sole discretion, to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the statements you make.

I really don't care if you pray to the broomstick beside your door, or believe that time really runs in reverse of our perceptions.  I Defend your Right to believe so, but I don't accept that you have any right to force me to agree, while I do accept that you have a Right to try to persuade me to do so, and that others have a Right to attempt to persuade you, but not to force you, to change your beliefs.
I do not stand here as your judge, nor will I accept you as mine, though I may play tipster to your conscience, should you decide to demonstrate your colors.

Related articles

The War on Christianity

Return to a Eunuch Military?

Obama on National Defense

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.

And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What’s clear is that we quickly drove [most of] al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted [added to] our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave consequences for our fight against [put al-Qaeda on their heels] al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and – to this day – our interests in a vital region.  [due to a premature withdrawal, i.e. retreat, from a war not yet won, and ceding of hardwon victories to an enemy not yet defeated.]

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses – hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.  [Which was and remains in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and the Law of Land Warfare.]

After I took office, we stepped up [retreated from] the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course[by ceding the blood soaked victories we had won]. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership [or claimed to do so, without basis]. We ended the war in Iraq [allowing it to fall prey to the current onslaught of Islamist terrorism], and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan [of denying the facts], and increased our training of Afghan [Taliban] forces [without vetting them, so they could shoot our now unarmed Troops]. We
unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts [which are not a part of armed conflict and the Law of Land Warfare, as per the Geneva Conventions], worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with [demands to comply to] Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead  [due to the intelligence developed before this administration, and the risks accepted by Warriors, not politicians watching it on a video screen], and so are most of his top lieutenants. [killed during the previous administration] There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States [as the enemy has changed tactics to numerous small scale attacks], and our homeland is more secure [BS!, attacks are on the rise, and more prolific than anytime in our history]. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. [despite the fact that the enemy has not surrendered, or ended the war] Our alliances are strong [though weaker than they have been in over a decade], and so is our standing in the world. [BS, the Syrians saw that our threats mean nothing, the Israeli's don't think we have their back, and the European allies only want our free equipment.] In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.  [If only that were true.  We are not, and we won't be for the years or decades it takes to rebuild our military.]

Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one [single attack] that came to our shores on 9/11. [to many small attacks such as Ft Hood, Little Rock, Times Square, Boston, and Benghazi] With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions – about the nature of today’s threats, and
how we should confront them. [And who is capable of leading Our Military, and Our People to VICTORY, not submission.]

These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits [due to UN-Constitutional domestic pork barrel spending] and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. Our service-members and
their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home [which the administration now wants to pay for their own health care, and remove their 2nd Amendment rights, while suppressing their 1st Amendment rights] . From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the [administration] type of nation – and world – that we leave to our children. 

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. [But instead, this politician in chief will retreat from the enemy, curtail the God-Given Rights and Liberties of Citizens, and leave them naked to the attacks of the enemy at home and abroad, as civilians, or employees of the government.]  To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.  [And being willing to clearly state that the enemy is Islamism, that openly states it will butcher all those that won't convert, and rape women of their enemy (us), that will rob banks, and throw acid in the faces of Muslim women that dare to learn to read, that calls for the deaths of those that dare speak or write or draw, in a way they don't like.]

Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat [and rising in Yemen, Somalia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Kenya, Dagestan, Uzbekistan, Britain, France, Egypt, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, and so many other places, including Pakistan and Afghanistan]. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety [BS. They love death, even their own, more than we love life.] than plotting against us.  [They've gone from mere hopes of plots to actually carrying them out, on our streets, in Boston, in NYC, and in London.] They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston.  [But they did.] They have not carried out [just one, but many] a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates [and denials by politicians that Islamist terrorists have committed terrorism, but rather claims by the administration that Ft Hood was "work place violence" and Benghazi was "spontaneous protest" and the Boston Bombing was what?]. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda’s [subordinate] affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the most active in plotting against our homeland. [the same one that directed the Ft Hood attack and the Boston Bombing] While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot [and succeed in implementing] acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. [and the Times Square bombing and Ft Hood and Boston]

Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria [and Egypt and Tunisia, due to the actions of the current US Administration, which asked the Egyptian military to commit a coup and ordered allied leaders to abdicate to Islamists]. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror [in fighting Al-Qaeda's attempt to overthrow the Syrian dictator] to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi  [where Al-Qaeda "affiliates" on orders of Al-Qaeda attacked our Consulate], or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives [Al-Qaeda subordinates killed peaceful western civilians] – in loose affiliation with regional networks – launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their [international terrorist] operations.

Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City [15 years ago] – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. [Especially when they are given training and motivation from the very same Islamist terrorist organizations that hi-jacked and flew commercial jetliners into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11/01.] That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya.  [And our muted or lack of response emboldened the Islamist terrorist enemy, which decided on ever more spectacular attacks, even if it meant that they lost a few hundred dollar mud huts to million dollar cruise missiles.] These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.  [Or as this speech denotes, we did not learn that lesson.]

Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. [i.e. the cause of converting every human being on Earth to Islam, or cutting their throats.] Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. [No, the National Leadership or rather the political partisanship can have an extremely detrimental effect on the results of the sacrifices Our Troops make.] We need all elements of national power to win
a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.
In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will
come home. Our combat mission will come to an end  [without a Victory]. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies. [As the rising tide of Islamist terrorism in Iraq demonstrates in the wake of premature retreat.]

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.

Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. That’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in prison in New York [glad to hear that you finally admitted that Somali pirates are part of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network]. That’s how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic.  [and ended up with the US Administration putting an allied agent that helped us at risk, by telling the world 'how smart they were.]

But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia and Yemen – the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, [if they're shooting at Our Troops, they aren't civilians and they ARE the enemy.] or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.  [Invading a Sovereign Nation's airspace is just as much an act of war, according to International Law, as is sending in a special operations team.  Killing people in a foreign country is just as much an act of war if the person pulling the trigger is a lawyer in the White House, or an experienced Soldier on the battlefield.]

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense [to the SEALS that went in] the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces [SEALs, not Special Forces, which are Army.  Members of the Special Operations forces.]– but also depended on some luck [While the humble SEALs will confess to luck, politicians sitting behind a video screen watching them take those risks don't get to downgrade their succeses, which come from sweat laden experience, and blood fallen brothers with "some luck."] . And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory [rather the encroachment of their sovereignity by our drones]– was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.  [In 2008, animosity of the Paki people towards the US was at all time lows.  In 2012, the Obama Administration had managed to return it to previous highs.]

It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions – about who is
targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality. [International Law may not directly address the issue of pilotless planes, but it does make clear that flying a plane into a Sovereign Nation's airspace and dropping explosives, IS an act of war.  No where in international law, does it say that if the pilot is outside the plane does the country flying the plane not commit an act of war when it does so.]

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots
have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America’s actions are legal.  [The use of drones in enemy territories, in declared combat zones, and when approved by allied nations in their own territory is legal.  The use of drones against others is an act of war, and is not authorized.] We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, [oops, you said last year that the Taliban wasn't the enemy, and that was why you were leaving Afghanistan, without defeating them.] and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. [So why are you "ending" the war while they are not defeated?!?!"] So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world
away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists [that allowed the use of drones to kill American Citizens in an allied country and the release of Islamist terrorists to belligerent nations, and the forced the release of Islamist terrorists into reluctantly allied nations]– insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops [2009 would have been a good time to start that.  Five years of undermining them means they'd love to see a change of policy.] until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets [so, you admit Al-Qaeda is still there!], but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces [Oh yeah, those Taliban forces you said weren't our enemy in 2008, but admit in this speech are the enemy, and always have been.  Why are you retreating again?  Because the Taliban are massing?] . However, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same [No, force protection needs will be greater, while counter-terrorism capacity will be near non-existent] need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.  [So, in addtion to retreating the Troops, you'll also reduce the drone strikes in the most target rich of environments.  Oh yeah, there'll be few Troops to tell you where the enemy is.]

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. [So, you admit al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamist Maghreb (west), Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Hezbollah in Syria are actually part of Al-Qaeda, but claim that Libyan commercial TV is as well!] Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.  [Yeah, if I believed half of that, I wouldn't be spending the time to comment on any of this.  If you believe half of that, you probably haven't gotten this far into the speech.]

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us [I don't even believe you have a conscious at this point.  If you did, you would not ask Congress for permission to screw Our Troops, and would not allow Shinsucki to do so when they are in the VA system.] as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.  [The ENEMY killed civilians.  VERY few were killed purposely, or even collaterally by US Forces.  Less than 1%.  YOU know that Mr. Obama.}

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.  [So why the hell are you retreating from the enemy that is killing Our Own Citizens, as well as foreign citizens at the rate of thousands a month?]

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise
than drones, [NO, they are not.  Piloted planes carry a far more varied payload, and include ALL of the drone explosive options.] and likely to cause more civilian casualties [Again, completely false.] and local outrage  [Killing civilians, or populaces that are convinced that . And invasions of these territories [particularly drone strikes] lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths[No, it is not, because a human looking down the barrel of a gun is far more capable of discerning hostile intent, than a lawyer looking over the shoulder of someone watching a video screen half a world away.], or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.  [BS!  It would lead to politicians having to more carefully calculate the necessity of a lethal mission, weighing the risk of loss of human life, and their ability to explain that necessity to the American people.]

So yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war [murdered by the enemy] where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed [by the enemy, not by the hands of Our Troops!  I'm really tiring of having to point that out to the guy is supposed to be leading Our Troops, but instead decides to imply they are murderers]. So neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in
territories that have no functioning police or security services – and indeed, have no functioning law. 

This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. [It would be nice if you would start complying with that oath.] The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.  [Is that why you have used them so prolifically against our allies?]

For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. [When!?!?] After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that – not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.  [So, are you denying that you targeted the other 3, or saying that you didn't know who all was in the targeted location?  That wouldn't be precise in the latter case, but the former seems to be your MO, i.e. denying the obvious.]

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. [But you just admitted that you did target an American, and now that it wasn't Constitutional to do so.  Nor did you go through the proper procedure of revoking his citizenship, before killing him in a non-combat situation.] Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.  That’s who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.  [Let's not forget that he also commanded the FT Hood Shooter, and the Times Square Bomber, and many others, that you have declared "work place violence" or "lone wolves."]

Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups – even against a sworn enemy of the United
States – is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people. Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice.
For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested – the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch – avoids those problems, but
may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these – and other – options for increased oversight.

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or
Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted
problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and values demand that we make the effort.  This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya [in two of which the current Administration successfully caused an Islamist rise to power, far worse than that which it replaced] – because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition [primarily Al-Qaeda, at this point] in Syria, while isolating extremist elements – because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies [such as China, which has overtaken America, while capitalizing our debt, and silencing our factories], upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship – because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples’ hopes, and not simply their fears.

Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.

America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.  [The military was ready.  It was the politicians that said no, that the military could not respond, in Benghazi.]

But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is the price of being the world’s most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the Arab World. And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run. [And yet you have demanded retreat in Iraq and in Afghanistan, while leaving diplomats to the hands of Islamists in Cairo and Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.]

Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.  [It will help if you will admit the fact that those "home grown" "lone wolf" terrorists are taking their orders and inspiration from the very same Islamist terrorist enemy, Al-Qaeda, as you are retreating from in Afghanistan.]

As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my ADdministration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to
prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties [how about ending the encrouchment of Americans' Constitutional Rights as well], is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam.

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that
means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board [NO, the Rights of Citizens can be removed only by due process of the Justice System, by a jury AND judge, while enemy combatants have no right or expectation of trial, unless they have committed war crimes.] to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.  Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a
media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice Guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.  [The 1st Amendment does not protect the media from breaking the law.  It does protect their right to free speech, equally with my own and every other citizen's.  The 4th protects their right to be secure in their papers, just as it does mine and everyone elses, including from the IRS.]

All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact – in sometimes unintended ways – the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. [BS.  It is stronger than it ever was, precisely because you have retreated, while denying its strength.] Groups like AQAP[i.e. Al-Qaeda] must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. [Wars end by Victory or Surrender.  Any other "end" is a continuation of the war.] That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.  [We have a Republic, with democratic elections, not a democracy, and NO, "the democracy" does not demand that.]

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.

To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission [Only war criminals get a trial in war.  Common combatants are released ONLY at the end of hostilities, and are not criminals.  War criminals are tried, in order to imprison them beyond the end of the war.  THAT is International Law, i.e. the Geneva Conventions.]. During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO – that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention – was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a
terrorist will end up at GTMO. [They won't cooperate when they know that the terrorists they turn over will be released back into their streets to kill more of their citizens.] During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people –almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home.  [How long will that take to add up to a single 9/11?  Yes, it does cost money to house foreign prisoners of war.  It costs even more when the politician in chief is buying them the most expensive dates and million dollar soccer fields.]

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries [that's called "rendition" which you campaigned against.]  before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries,[Congress finally did something right, but I'll credit you for signing the limitations on your plans.] or imprisoning them in the
United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.  [Except that is a complete waste of money to put terrorists in an overcrowded facility when the one they're in is 80% empty, except that releasing them will put them back in the war against us, except that putting them in US prisons will give them a recruiting ground for other Islamist terrorists.  I could go on.]

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries.  I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be
resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law. 

I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future – ten years from now, or twenty years from now – when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no
crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?

Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It is in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as we
speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “the way we treat you…is the measure of our own liberties.” He went on to point to the American flag that flew in the courtroom – “That flag,” he said, “will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom.”

America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent
tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.  I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80
percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.”

I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.

I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.”

I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs.

I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.”

That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with.

Now, we need a strategy – and a politics –that reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our
shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who
litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad.  And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Related articles

Islamist Terrorists have not "ended" the war

President Obama on Afghanistan drawdown: Transcript

When is the person committing terrorism not a terrorist

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" (I guess Obama is admitting that Saddam had millions of WMD) and "malicious destruction of property resulting in death."  Not only has he not been charged with terrorism, but he 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.

Related articles

Terrorists have not "ended" the war

British Islamist terrorists on trial

The Left's Spin on Boston Marathon's Chechen Terrorists

Premature Detonation Kills 3 Nigerian Islamist Terrorists

Islamist Terrorists have not "ended" the war

French kill Islamist terrorist; 3 Police wounded

2 suspects in custody in alleged Canadian terror plot

Two suspects in custody over alleged Canadian terror plot

Terrorists have not "ended" the war

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.

Related articles

Premature Detonation Kills 3 Nigerian Islamist Terrorists

Advancing the Rise of Islamism

None Dare Call It Islamism

Terrorism strikes Boston

The Growing Power & Threat of Islamism: 2011

"Hope is NOT a Strategy!"

Islamist Terrorists Kill 131 Nigerians

Nigerian leader condemns Obama Admin decision on Islamist Terrorists

Those Libyan Ties to Terrorism, CIA & MI6

Parallels of History: "the end of war is nigh"

Video: GITMO hunger strikers - Let them eat...or NOT!

Out of GITMO comes word that there are 'clashes' between guards and detainees, as over 40 of them continue to stage a hunger strike.

From the BBC:

13 April 2013

 

Clashes at Guantanamo over hunger strike prisoners

Prisoners and guards have clashed at Guantanamo Bay as authorities moved inmates, many of whom are on hunger strike, out of communal cellblocks.

 

The move came after detainees covered surveillance cameras and windows, a US Army spokesman said.

 

He said some prisoners used "improvised weapons" and in response "four less-than-lethal rounds" were fired.

 

The Pentagon says 43 prisoners are on hunger strike, but lawyers for the detainees say the number is higher.

It's time to re-evaluate...

... Everything.

The State of America is in disarray from the priorities of the average individual, to the elitist attempts of politicians to control the everyday decisions of Federal Subjects of the government.  We must figure out, at least the major symptoms of what is wrong, and the causes.  We must re-examine the body of laws on the books.  And yes, we must also study the words, meanings, and intent of the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, through the prism of the Declaration of Independence.  We must examine where we went wrong.

I've examined, discussed, and expounded upon the US Constitution several times and several ways before this.  In short, the Constitution is not the problem.  Ignoring the simple rules laid out by the Constitution by legislative judges, elitist power-mongering politicians, and greedy partisans is the problem. 

The symptoms of the problem are myriad, far too numerous to discuss in a single body of work.  Some of the problems have previously been discussed here: "policeing for profit," debilitating taxation, search and seizure of persons, papers, and effects without a warrant, and more. 

The subject of the education system has been touched upon, and it is one of the key roots of the problem.  Forty years ago, many children walked to school, while today even those that live next door to the school may be bussed to it, or away from it, to one further away, to mega-schools.  While spending upwards of $250,000 per classroom per year, our kids are walking texting while driving away with a diploma that won't get them a job, and barely knowing how to read and write. 

Politicians have turned the school system into an instructor of morals, and have used kids to pressure their own parents into behavioral change, while teaching to the test, but not the subjects.  Parents have relinquished their parental duties of teaching morals, and accepted medicating their children out of kid behaviors.  Parents are using the school system as a babysitting service and teachers have trended towards having the kids teach themselves, via technology, rather than actually doing their jobs.  In these inefficient, expensive mega-schools kids learn that they are just another cog in the wheel, while attaining feel good awards for attendance.

Some school board somewhere should seriously consider trending back to the small, neighborhood schools.  Schools, that are close enough that kids can and do walk to them.  Not only would it have an effect of providing a little exercise for children, reducing the obesity epidemic, but would save the school system considerable money on fuel, as well as the purchase and maintenance of busses.  More importantly, these smaller schools would re-build the personal relationship of parent-teacher-student and likely increase the accountability of teachers to actually teaching, and the student to actually learning. 

Instead of moving back towards kids getting out and experiencing the world around them, we're seeing kids encouraged to withdraw from an insular, inside buildings lifestyle, to an inside electronic device life.  I've literally seen the current generations sit at a party, and text on their "smart" phones the entire time, some of it to those around them, but oblivious to those across from and next to them.

Schools need to get back to the basics: teaching actual subjects, not morals. 

Policeing needs to be re-evaluated.  Citizens and Politicians need to recognize that the Police do not prevent crime.  They catch criminals that have committed crimes.  As alluring as it might sound to incarcerate someone before they commit a crime, it would be wrong to do so.  But when those criminals are arrested, charged, and found guilty, they should not be allowed to walk back out through the revolving doors of the prison system.  Yes, we need to prioritize who should be in prisons, but we also need to recognize that child molesters are not rehabilitated.  It also means that we must stop criminalizing immoral behavior.

When the police, or the politicians, break the law, they must be held accountable, and due to their position, held to a higher standard.  This needs to come from within their ranks, which currently have a reputation for protecting their own, even when one of their number has disgraced their profession.  The badge is not a license to bully Citizens, nor to ignore the laws they claim to enforce. 

When a policeman or police department goes on a rampage, shooting up neighborhoods and citizens, because a car happens to be similiar to that of a suspect, their fellow brothers in blue should condemn the lack of professionality, and call for that department to go back to the Academy to learn basics like "positive ID" of your target, announcing your status, and actually aiming your weapon.

And the use of technology to conduct policeing must be evaluated and regulated, in accordance with the Bill of Rights.  The use of cameras, for example, is not necessarily an invasion of privacy, but the technology is being used beyond Constitutional bounds.  A license plate reading camera that alerts police that a stolen car, or criminal's car, is in the district is not an invasion of privacy, but the maintaining of records of movements of law-abiding citizens does cross that line.  Security cameras that record activity in case a crime is committed are not the problem, but use of those cameras and recordings beyond the documentation of crimes is wrong.

The use of the word "Right" has been abused, misused, and distorted.  You have a Right to: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  You have the Right to Free Speech, to the Religion of your choice, to own Firearms, to not have your home, person, or papers Searched or Seized by the Government.  You don't have a right to take someone else's life, or use the government to seize the property of others.  You don't have a right to be guaranteed happiness, or to goods and services you can't afford, aside from a Lawyer when the government accuses you of a crime.  You don't have a right to a play station, a job, a paycheck, or health insurance.

The word "Citizen" is misunderstood.  A Citizen is equal to all other Citizens, including the Politicians, the Lawyers, and the elitist billionaires like Bloomberg.  The Citizen is not a subject of the government, as Americans are becoming.  A Citizen is not ruled by the Government, but is an equal ruler of the Government.  A Citizen is not simply the resident of a locale, of a city, a state, or a Nation, but instead involved in the decisions of the servants selected to run those governments.  And that comes with the responsibility to make an informed to decision about those politicians, and to monitor the actions of the employees they selected to run the governments.

Even "State" isn't perceived according to its definition.  Israel, Egypt, Britain, and Russia are all States.  State is not a synonym of Province, Department, County, or any other form of subordinate government.  The States were united in a common defense and common foreign policy, not in an agreement to subordination to the dictates of elite politicians.  The term State is regularly used with the adjective "Sovereign," though that is somewhat redundant, and most often used to emphasize that other States don't have the "right" to interfere in their business.  "United Nations" means the same thing as "United States" but the UN has no authority to tell the US or any State within it what to do.

It is not better to have a bunch of cheaply made stuff that you bought on credit than to have a fewer quality goods that will last into your grandkid's lifetimes.  It is better to have a business, than a job.  It is better to be a stockholder, a co-owner, of a good company, than a gambler at the slot machines.  It is far better to have quality goods that you can use to make money, than to have the money itself, and having savings and investments is better than having cheap stuff that'll break or be outdated in a month.  And having cash on hand, or in the bank, is better than having debt to the bank. 

It is better to buy something made by someone you know than someone you don't.  It is better to spend a dollar or two more for something made by someone in a Factory in your State, than by kids in Pakistan.  It is better to Buy American, than to buy cheap stuff made by political prisoners in China.  The more Americans you keep employed by buying their goods and services, the better your own chance of finding and keeping a job.  Not everyone needs a college degree.  College does not and should not teach the skilled trades, like carpentry, electrical work, and plumbing.  A factory worker doesn't need a college degree to push a robot's buttons.  It is better to take your car to a mechanic with a HS Diploma, than to a Doctor with a law degree from Harvard as well.

But pointing out that you as a consumer are also responsible for your employment status, is me, using my Right to Free Speech, not me, calling for the government to make a law to force you to act responsibly.  Your decisions on what to buy have an impact on the whole economy, but they are your decisions to make, even if your irresponsibility decreases your chances to earn a paycheck.

And me pointing out that the education system is broken is not me being against teachers.  It is me calling for School Boards to look  back to what did work, and fix it.  More money thrown at the problem won't fix it.  Better use of the money that is already there is the place to start.  It is not me calling for Federal greater involvement of the Federal Government in the local government, but rather in calling for less.

And pointing at the oppressive trend of police forces is not anti-Police.  I have great respect for most of my Brothers in Blue, but they need to rid themselves of Wolves in Sheepdog's clothing, and Citizens need to hold responsible the politicians that are ordering them to infringe on the privacy of the People. Ninety-nine percent of the Police Officers I know are upstanding members of society, and avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing, but the unions and administrators who priortize writing speeding tickets over investigating burglaries, or who are paying outsourced camera companies, so they can collect a portion of the fines, over cops walking the beat, have forgotten, or ignored, their mandate.

It is time for the American People to read George Orwell's "1984," and consider the parallels of "Big Brother" watching their every move, of the consequences of "double-think" and a diminishing vocabulary.  It is time for the American People to read the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, and re-think what they want politicians to do.  It is time for us to stop infringing on the Rights and Liberties of others in order to attain the "free stuff" the politicians promise for subservience.

It is time for all of us to practice Responsibility, rather than to claim a right to infringe on others.

Related articles

What Were the Founding Fathers Thinking!?!?

Citizenship & Constitution: Your Freedoms and My "Right" to Restrict it

"It's complicated"

The Post-American Century: the ruler becomes the Sovereign

Want the Right To Bear Arms?

Warning: Politicians - We Will Not Allow You To Disarm Us

Rights for Citizens & Enemies

Police and Politicians missing the mark

Forms of Democracy & Government

Warning: Politicians - We Will Not Allow You To Disarm Us

The Petraeus connection & personal email security

While it is disappointing that the most respected man in Washington has admitted to marital infidelity, that isn't a crime, at least not given that it occurred after he retired before the affair.  Nor is it really difficult to understand it occurring.  A younger, not unattractive woman was hanging on his every word, and literally writing a book about his life, and "genius."  Every one of those medals, that reach the epaulette of his uniform, he wore in the military are just as earned today, as they were a year ago.  He still turned the Iraq War around, and accepted a demotion to run the War in Afghanistan, for a President that had disrespected him.  He is still an honorable man, even if he fell to human temptation.

But as the MSM and FBI continue into the mudpit of the affair, some common threads are becoming apparent.  And those common threads are perhaps bigger than the original story, which took an honorable man out of the leadership of Our Nation's government.  The common links are a Tampa socialite, Jill (Khawam-خاعم) Kelley, the FBI, and private emails.

"As they looked further, the FBI agents came across a private Gmail account that used an alias name. On further investigation, the account turned out to be Petraeus's." RICHARD LARDNER, AP

In the latest developments, the FBI conducted a middle of the night search of Paula Broadwell's house, General Allen is now being investigated, and the FBI agent that started the investigation on Jill Kelley's behalf has also been implicated.  At the center of the web, remains Jill Kelley.

Mrs. Kelley appears to have great influence and access.  She has enough influence to get the FBI to investigate what seems to have been anonymous emails from someone that simply knew too much about her private life.  She's a civilian that has access to the top brass at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, those at Central Command that runs Military Operations in the Middle East, and to FBI agents.  She is of Lebanese descent.

In contrast to initial reports, the email account used by Ms. Broadwell wasn't the General's/CIA Director's official account.  It was instead a private email account, and anonymous, which means that the FBI conducted an in-depth search into private email, and IP addresses, and the personal computers attached to them, on behalf of a Tampa socialite.  And they didn't just look at emails that were sent privately, but also the draft email folder, of emails that were never sent.

Apparently, the FBI struggled to find a justification for the investigation into an anonymous email account that sent unsavory emails to Mrs. Kelley, and the stricken FBI agent fired off letters to a Congressman to get the fire lit again.  According to current reports, Mrs. Kelley did not know who Ms. Broadwell was.

So far, in all of this, no actual crimes or security threats have been confirmed.  Marital infidelity is an issue of morality, and an issue for the parties involved: General and Mrs. Petraeus, and his biographer, Paula Broadwell.  Sending email, or even using a draft folder in an anonymous, private email account to cover immoral, but not illegal activity is not a crime.  Sending unsavory email is not a crime.  Even the FBI agent's sending of an email with a topless picture of himself is not a crime, even though it was to a married woman.

The more troublesome details of the investigation are that so many FBI resources were diverted from investigating child-pornography (Cybercrimes Unit of FBI), and hunting terrorists, to satisfy the displeasure of a Tampa socialite and an FBI agent enamored with her, the amount of influence she appears to have attained, and perhaps more than anything the degree to which the FBI is willing to invade private communications in such a case.

"With subpoenas and warrants, the FBI and other investigating agencies routinely gain access to electronic inboxes and information about email accounts offered by Google, Yahoo and other Internet providers." RICHARD LARDNER, AP

And if the government is willing to go to such depths for a civilian socialite who was unhappy with the emails she received, what would they do for their political bosses?  And evidently, if you want the FBI to have to get a warrant to look at your email, you need to delete the stuff that is 6 months old, though there is nothing in cyberspace that is truly deleted.

At present, at least two leaders troublesome to the Administration have gotten caught up in this: General Allen and General Petraeus.

Related articles

The Petreaus connection & personal email security

America the Beautiful is broken

A dear friend of mine spent yesterday at Arlington National Cemetary visiting her Fallen Hero son on his birthday.

Over the last 24 hours, as we all watched American voters re-elect the current President of the United States of America, all I could think about was young men and women - like Jason - who swore an oath to defend and protect ideals bigger than themselves.

As I watched the final gasps of what has been a most acrimonious and seemingly never-ending grab of the highest office in the land, I was struck by the absolute contrast between the actions of our Military men and women, and those whom the msm seemed to delight in shining the spotlight on.  Over the last few weeks, the cacophony - the ugliness - of the harsh voices of the 'give me' electorate tore at my heart.

As Jason's mom Mickey prepared for her annual vigil to her Hero son's resting place, I couldn't help but wince as we were treated to a disgusting display of America the ugly.  Courtesy of social media, and aided and abetted by the always willing Obama sycophants in the msm, the noise of the "Obamafone queen' and the like,  made me want to cry.

Disturbing Detention: Former Marine held for Facebook Rants

UPDATE (23 AUG 2012): From the Richmond Times Dispatch;

"After an hourlong hearing, Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett said an involuntary commitment petition issued against Brandon J. Raub was invalid because it contained no allegation or basis to holding him.

“The petition is so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy,” said the release order signed by the judge and sought by lawyers Anthony F. Troy and Brian D. Fowler.

Sharrett said that he was shocked by the failure of a magistrate to not include in the order any grounds for holding Raub, a Chesterfield resident who was transferred from John Randolph Hospital in Hopewell to the Salem Veterans Affairs Medical Center."

This Ain't Hell reports.

I have long stated that the 1st Amendment protects the right of the individual to not only be stupid, but demonstrate how stupid they are, to the rest of the World.  The 5th Amendment comes into play into this case as well.  It provides that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Last week, Brandon Raub, a US Citizen, and Veteran of the US Marine Corps, was detained, based on "tips" about his Facebook postings.  According to some reports, the US Secret Service, the FBI, and County Sheriff's office were involved and he ended up in involuntary detention for 32 days (so far) for "mental health" observation.  So far, the FB postings I've become aware of, demonstrate a propensity for him to believe in various Conspiracy Theories, surrounding 9/11 and other events of historical relevance, but I've seen no indication that he has attempted to commit or conspire to commit any crimes.  It does appear that he believes that the Nation is headed towards Civil War or Revolution in the near future, but I have seen nothing that indicates that he is calling for Armed Conflict, only that he believes it is coming, and that those opposed to the government will ask him to join their side, as a leader.

Some have speculated that there must be more behind the scenes, than what has been published about him, and his condition.  "They" have stated their faith in the authorities that made the decision.  And in most cases, I too extend the benefit of the doubt to my Brothers in Blue, but they are not infallible, and they are not all equal.

Now, I am not defending his rants, but I am defending his right to believe those things, and his right to tell the world about them.  I think his 9/11 Conspiracy Theories are downright idiotic, though it is usually people smarter than me that are able to connect dots with lines that don't exist.  The 1st Amendment doesn't protect only politically correct, uncontroversial, or unoffensive Speech.  It protects offensive, politically incorrect, & incorrect opinion.  It protects political speech against the government and ruling politicians.

Like Raub, I think a Civil War may be coming.  I fear it may be coming.  There is widespread support for a government spending out of control, doing things which the US Constitution does not support.  And there is backlash to that.  I believe it would be counterproductive, to the goals of Constitutionalists, for the Nation to devolve into war.  I hold that if they cannot convince the People of the United States, with rhetoric, of the importance and value of the Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution, there is no amount of violence that would convince the people otherwise.  Conversely, a Civil War would be sufficient excuse for their opposition to re-write the Constitution, or at least "temporarily" set aside the Bill of Rights.

Raub, is a difficult person for the average person to defend.  Few people believe in the whacky Conspiracy Theories he spouts.  Some might even call him paranoid.  But paranoia is a subjective diagnosis.  It rests on the fears of the individual being "baseless."  And the information known in this case does not support his fears being "baseless."  No information has been published giving a basis for crime or danger to anyone.  He's vocally suspicious of his government, and his government has removed his liberty.  His government has given a base for his fears.

I have engaged in verbal combat with all kinds of loons and quacks, as well as those across the political spectrum.  It is my 1st Amendment Right to point out the fallacies of their arguments.  In the course of the last few years, I've come across Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Conspiracy Theorists, as well as Republicans, Democrats, Constitutionalists, Isolationists, Libertarians, Militant LGBTers, and various other stripes.  Some have accused me of wishing to deny their Rights to Free Speech, because I was exercising my own.  But the bottom line is that Free Speech is every Citizen's Right, even those that disagree with me, and even those that believe stuff that is bats*** crazy.  One even has a 1st Amendment Right to argue that the 1st Amendment should be repealed.  The 1st Amendment protects the most unsavory of arguments.  It just doesn't protect speech that conspires to commit crimes, nor does it protect crimes committed (including trespassing, espionage, or treason) prior to, during, or after the Right of Free Speech is invoked.

While I believe Raub would have been better served having exercised his Right to Remain Silent, rather than his Right to Free Speech, he also has a Right to Due Process, PRIOR to him being denied his Right to Liberty.  And his detention is more likely to push more to fear their government, than to convince Conspiracy Theorists of the errors of their illogic.

((And for the record, having Adam Kokesh in one's defense team is a bad move.  But I'm not going to link to that.  You'll have to go to TAH to view the video: http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=31653))

In EVERY case, the government has the burden of proof and in this case it has not proven, in the court of public opinion, that Raub's 1st or 5th Amendment Rights should be revoked.

Even Rachel Maddow found the concept of preventive detention to be abhorrent, when proposed by her favored politician.  And he was talking about enemy combatants:  

The "Ending" of the Viet Nam War

On March 29th, 1973, the last US Troops left Viet Nam, officially ending a war that was not considered a war.  The official dates of the war to this day are not the same as the dates that the war was fought.  The war began under Dwight Eisenhower and expanded under JFK.

The perception, falsely, remains that Our Troops lost.  They did not.  The politicians gave up, in the face of protests, initiated by our Cold War enemy.  The politicians had tried to play General, hamstrung Our Troops, and failed to take the fight to the enemy for years before that.

The iconic images of the end of the war were taken 2 years later, on March 30th, 1975, when the US Embassy in Saigon was evacuated, as Saigon fell to the Communist North.  Some, many, will say that because we had US Marines at the Embassy, the war continued.  Every Embassy has Marines.  Their role is to protect the US soil of the Embassy, and more practically, particularly in situations like this, the US Citizens that work in the Embassy.  Our Marines, on March 30th, 1975 performed valiantly, saving as many lives as humanly and physically possible, but it was the South Vietnamese government, not the US Military that fell that day.

Our Troops fought Valorously and Honorably in Viet Nam.  They did what was asked of them, and won the battles they fought.  Our Nation still owes the Veterans of Viet Nam, primarily because Our Citizens maligned them, ignored them, and abused them for so long.

On this day, and every day that a Viet Nam War Veteran reveals himself, please Welcome him Home, and thank him for doing a difficult, and thankless job.

In the video above, Sergeant Major Max Beilke, US Army is shown in CBS footage.  He was the last to leave Viet Nam, and became one of the first to fall in the War On Terrorism.  He was killed in the Pentagon, on 9/11/2001, still serving his Nation and fellow Veterans, as a civilian.

Are Troops "Fighting for Obama?"

"when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf" Obama, ABC Interview with Robin Roberts, 09 May 2012

NO, Our Troops do not risk all and sacrifice so much, for ANY politician.  Politicians send them into battle, but that is NOT for the politician, for his party, or for their campaigns.  The Troops do NOT swear an oath to a politician, for a poltician, or to blindly follow a ruler.  The Military swears an oath to protect the Constitution and accepts those risks, for Our Citizens.

The chief executive of the United States is not Constitutionally a ruler of the American People, but entrusted with presiding over a very limited government.  The Constitution limits his authority, along with the authority of the government over which he presides.  It requires that he also swears an oath to protect it, to act within its limited powers.

This simple statement belies the bigger problem, "innocently," stated in the context of a seemingly unrelated issue that Obama has deemed unnecessary for him to uphold the current laws.  He made this statement in regards to a special interest group lawsuit against a standing US law on "DOMA" and in contradiction to promises that the repeal of DADT would not "evolve" into an attempt to change DoD policies on living arrangements of the Troops, or create a "special status" for LGBT's.

An Effective MSM Campaign: Treyvon Martin

What makes the Martin-Zimmermann case so different from other crimes?  An effective media campaign does.  When one looks at the facts, it is difficult to conclude that the misinformation of the MSM was not purposeful.  It was 3 weeks after the incident that the MSM jumped on the case, so they did have time to examine the facts.

[Pictured: Tyrone Woodfork who raped and murdered the wife of a WWII Veteran and beat the Veteran himself in Tulsa, OK.]

The MSM presented the Nation (and continues to do so) a picture of a 12 year old, instead of the more recent and available pictures of the 17 year old, who had embraced the gangsta look.  They told us he had no criminal record, despite the fact he had been suspended from school 3x in just the last few months, including on illicit drug charges and for attacking a bus driver.  But the most telling and obvious example of how they mis-portrayed the facts is the 911 call, which they edited to sound as if Zimmerman were reporting a "suspicious black man" as opposed to answering the dispatcher's questions as to the physical description of the person he had believed suspicious enough to call police about.

Destoying the World with "Environmentalism"

In the Bible, God commands man to be a good steward to the Earth.  In the last few decades, wildlife management has transformed from hunters protecting Nature while maintaining the balance, to environmentalists demanding that man protect predators that compete for the food supply.  While it was conservationist hunters that led the charge against wanton littering and destruction of nature, environmentalists have prophesized the coming Ice Age in the 70's and 80's, Global Warming in the 90's and 2000's, and now settled on "Climate Change" to hedge their bets in both directions.

Climate change is real.  It runs in cycles with decade long, century long, millenium long and probably longer cycles.  There have been multiple ice ages, including the mini-ice age of the Christian age, from which, with no factories, the Earth warmed.  And with diminished cattle, it's not likely that the methane producing sheep and cows had much of an effect either.  If anything, the diminished production of methane should have produced a colder, not warmer environment, when they froze or starved to death, along with their human ranchers.  The Great Lakes were created by melting glaciers, as well as were numerous canyons around the world.  The "ice bridge" across the Aleutians melted long before Al Gore claimed the swimming polar bears were drowning, or the first steam, much less the first gas combustion engine was invented.

In the name of saving fish, California has created a desert, preventing farmers from irrigating their farms.  Environmentalists have worked diligently to repopulate the West with wolves, that feed on the same meat humans eat.  Conversely, they have worked hard to stop hunting of the same prey by men.  Meanwhile lions and wolves are preying not only on deer, but also California pets, and occasionally even human children and adults.  Meanwhile the same prophets of doom have encouraged the move from rural "carbon neutral" residences, where food and future furniture are produced, to the heat producing concrete jungles where criminals prey on humans.

Afghanistan: Where Politics is More Important than Reality

"Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so too does geopolitics, and should the United States leave Afghanistan -- should ISAF, should NATO leave Afghanistan -- that would create, in my mind, for all intents and purposes, a geopolitical vacuum, ahead, however, of the [Afghan forces] being ready to take full security."  General Allen, ISAF Commander, in testimony to Congress.

General Allen is in a difficult position.  When he accepted the job as Commander of forces in Afghanistan, he committed to Victory over the enemy, using whatever resources the POTUS allowed him.  Obama won't use the word Victory, and is hell-bent on "ending the war" by withdrawal.  In 2011, the POTUS began pulling Troops out, in the middle of the "fighting season."  In 2012, the POTUS is stubbornly removing another 25% of the force, again, in the middle of the fighting season.

A rapid expansion of the Afghan security forces, on orders of the politicians, led to a lack of vetting of the recruits, and hence a number of Taliban infiltrators to it.  That has resulted in an unprecedented rash of "green on blue" attacks.  Except, the attackers, while wearing ANA/ANP/ABP uniforms, were actually Taliban fighters.  Inexplicably, the Administration has ordered that to be downplayed. 

What To Do About All Those "Crazed Combat Veterans?"

In the first quarter of 2012, the media has publicized an Iraq Veteran killing a Park Ranger in Washington, an Orange County Deputy killing a Marine, an Army Private being stabbed to death by Meth Heads in Washington, and a Staff Sergeant that allegedly killed 16 Afghans in their sleep, along with so many other stories of Violent Veterans.  The media is quick to tell us that these are Combat Veterans, but often fail to tell us when the person was tossed out of the military, like in that first case listed, or correct the story when they weren't in Combat at all, or weren't in the military as they had claimed.

In 2008, the NYTimes was on the same hunt, to prove that "Crazed" Combat Veterans were slaughtering American Civilians.  They wrote about 121 cases in which someone died.  The problem was that in many of those the Veteran was found to be innocent or to have acted in self-defense, while in others the trial had not occurred, and in many it was not murder at all.  In those latter cases, it was often a car accident, that helped to boost their body count.  When it was all said and done, the numbers demonstrated it was safer to be near a Combat Veteran than to be in the safest big city in America.

But "one is too many."

One case of domestic violence, one murder, or one suicide is "too many."  Yeah, that sounds good, but short of locking every American up in solitary confinement, there is NO program that can end all violence in this Nation, any subsection of it, or in any other country.

The question is whether or not the media attention presents a true picture.  It sells papers and tunes in viewers when the headline reads "Crazed Combat Veteran Kills Civilians," and they are selling papers.  The problem is that by pimping that headline while ignoring headlines about illegal aliens, druggies, and gangbangers killing cops and civilians, the media is creating, purposely, the perception that Our Veterans are violently, deranged lunatics, to be feared by Our Citizens.  The evidence does not support that.

"Incident in New Baghdad" & What Really Happened

On 12 July 2007, an Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment embarked on a mission to clear Al-Amin District of New Baghdad of Anti-Iraqi Forces, aka Mehdi Militia, aka Jayish al-Mahdi in order to provide freedom of maneuver to Coalition Forces.  By 10:20 AM, Baghdad time, they had taken significant amounts of SAF (small arms fire) and RPG (rocket propelled grenade) fire, sporadically.  Two AH-64D's were in the area and responded.  What would happen next would inspire a movie, that would be nominated for an Oscar, but not win one.

"Now the war is over and in a lot of ways we're still fighting it. It is my accretion that despite what many leaders of this very government said publicly or otherwise, we won. We won through the blood sweat and tears of the troops on the ground, that refused to give up."  Doc Bailey

To understand the situation, one must realize the Mehdi Militia was led by Moqtada al-Sadr, a relative of Bani al-Sadr, who had mentored the Ayatollah Khomeni.  Moqtada's father had been assassinated, allowing the firebrand mulllah to take the reins of power his father had once held.  Moqtada was at the time, for all intents and purposes, the dictator of a Million Man slum in North Baghdad controlled 100% by his Mehdi Militia. 

Army Wife Silenced

I was disheartened by the mob mentality I watched unfold when a new and young Army Wife published a post that demonstrated her youth, her frustration, and her ignorance of the world she had only recently entered.  The charge was led by a Colonel's wife, who is connected to a Non-Profit, and to much of the MilBlog community.  She used her influence to call for what amounted to a very public internet lynching and to pressure the young NCO's chain of command.

This is not to say that the young wife was correct in her statements or conclusions, but watching it unfold was like watching a sitcom of the popular High School girls going after the new girl in the school.  The young wife must have been online when the pack attacked, because she turned off comments before the angry abuse hit 20.  The Colonel's wife was already crying foul that she didn't get her lashes in on the young lady, even as she deleted my comments condemning the behavior.  She has since deleted her accusation on the WOTN wall that alleged I had attacked her personally, rather than recognizing that it was her actions I had condemned.

To clarify the realities behind the emotional attacks: There is a difference between Active Duty Soldiers, and Reserve, and National Guard Soldiers.  They are all Soldiers, and I served in all 3 types of the Army.  The sacrifices are different.  None are a cakewalk.  But there are differences, just as there are differences in the way men and women think, the way Mexicans and Brits look, and the way C130 and F15 pilots fly.  Noting these differences for what they are is no more wrong than describing a criminal on the run for his race.  Pretending they don't exist is political correct BS that creates one-size-fits all plans that fit no one.  And it creates the frustration the young Army Wife was attempting to clarify.

And the jackal attack that followed creates the reluctance of Troops in introducing their wives to organizations that might exhibit the behavior.  As some MilBloggers are asking why fewer are entering the world of public discourse, the attacks, which resulted in her Army husband being called on the carpet by a Senior Officer in his command, demonstrate the perils of Troops considering the telling of their stories.  Yes, that NCO publicly defended his wife's right to expression, but he was not the one that wrote the offensive blogpost.  He was however the one that suffered the repercussions and is licking his own wounds, along with his ostracized wife.

In situations like this, maternal figures in my life would have retorted to those that attacked with: "Well, I hope you are happy with yourselves."

So, what should have happened?  Those elder, popular wives should have dropped the New, Young Army wife an email that recognized the woman's frustration, but pointed out the errors.  National Guard Soldiers do wear a tape that says "US Army" because they are Soldiers.  There are no such things as "Company" patches, but the unit patches worn by the Vermont National Guard are only as different from the Recruiting Command patch as are the 82nd Airborne patch is from the Recruiting Command patch.

Yes, that Recruiter served elsewhere, before he served as a Recruiter, and he'll serve somewhere else in the future, if he stays in.  His war stories are different than those of the Soldiers of the Vermont National Guard.  They served in different places, with different people, at different times.  There is a difference between coming back and preparing your rucksack and dufflebags for 3 weeks in the field, or preparing your resume to go out looking for a job in a down economy.  Yes, Active Duty Troops deploy more often than Reserve Component.

But being the wife of a National Guard Colonel does not excuse you from acting with the same grace, experience, and respect expected of an Officer's wife on Active Duty.  Having a dedicated Facebook following does not afford you the right to treat a young wife, fresh into her life as the Primary Supporter of ONE Soldier in such an aggressive manner.  If you believe that the young wife's actions reflect on a young NCO, imagine how much more a very public Colonel's wife's actions reflect on him.  Should he be reported to the TAG, and reprimanded to the TAG for YOUR words?

Why did I get involved?  After all, it wasn't my business?  Condemning the actions of the popular girl isn't going to win me more friends, and may even cause her fans to quit reading.  I spoke my mind because what was happening was wrong, regardless of how errant the young lady's words were.  It is easy to cheer on the crowd.  It is easy to be silent when you know the crowd will disagree.  It isn't the right thing to do, to sit on the sidelines, when you witness a mob of your "friends," ganging up on the new girl.

What I won't do is send a pack of readers to attack those involved.  No, I don't believe the primary individuals involved understand why their actions were wrong, nor that they can be convinced of it.  And while I do believe the young woman might have been able to understand where her errors were wrong, I doubt this experience will change her distaste any time soon.  Unfortunately, what is done, is done.  I can only hope that those that joined the lynching will think twice before joining the mob, should a similiar situation present itself, in the future.

Media Matters: Front Page News

On the front pages of the international msm this past week:

Airman 1st Class Matthew R. Seidler, 24, of Westminster, Md.
Tech. Sgt. Matthew S. Schwartz, 34, of Traverse City, Mich.
Senior Airman Bryan R. Bell, 23, of Erie, Pa
Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, Ind.
Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, Ind.
Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, Ill.
Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, Ind.
Pfc. Dustin P. Napier, 20, of London, Ky
Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, Va
Pfc. Neil I. Turner, 21, of Tacoma, Wash

You might be excused if you missed the msm headlines on these Fallen American Heroes this past week.

Maybe you saw these stories on the front pages of the international msm:

TF Spartan Paratroopers Rescue Afghan Child
UK and Afghan Troops help open critical new school

I'm sure you saw these on the front pages:

Ghazni District Transfers Security
Afghan boy with severe cleft palate has reason to smile - courtesy of Coalition Forces

How about combat news from our Troops?

ANA, Marines clear out last insurgency from southern Helmand
New ANA elite snipers graduate course
Operation Tageer Shamal: Afghans, Marines take control west of Helmand River


Did you miss this story of our British Troops 'just doing their job,' making a difference for the people of Afghanistan?

YORKS soldiers on patrol in Helmand

I am *sure* you all saw this video as the top story of the broadcast media last week. It is an interview with a Security Chief in Marjah, on how things have changed since the Taleban has been thrown out - defeated.

Video: Marjah after the Taleban - Security Chief Tells of Progress


No, you saw none of these on the international front pages, BUT I found them and posted these (and others) on War On Terror News.

What we all saw on the msm front page news, and as top story on the broadcast media, was a story about four Marines who filmed themselves doing something very stupid. Whether or not you agree with the act they did is not at issue for me, but the fact they recorded it? Yes, THAT was stupid, and I have to wonder how they ever thought such a film would not become 'news,' given the 24/7 insatiable appetite of our msm, who seem to salivate at every opportunity to show OUR Military in a bad light.

Zero Default; Zero Tolerance

As the Economy plummeted, the Military tightened its recruitment standards and Congress lowered the enlistment incentives.  Re-enlistment bonuses shrank, and Congress decided against more than the legally required pay raises.  Senator Webb, a Veteran himself, and normally on the Pro-Troop side of his party put it this way: with the Economy in bad shape, we don't need to pay the Troops more to recruit the numbers we need.  He was right of course.  The recruiters have been turning away qualified applicants for some time.  Only the National Guard is missing its decreased recruiting goals.  People are signing up for a job, instead of for the Mission.

And with the process of cutting the force by another 49,000, the Army has an opportunity to weed out bad apples, right?  Between the bad economy, the increase in new recruits, and the looming cuts, the Army has to figure out who to fire, and has little incentive to tolerate any misbehavior.  This is a good thing, right?

On the heels of bad publicity over DUI's and "Sexual Assaults" and "hazing" and the repeal of DADT, "Zero Tolerance" isn't just a buzzword, but an excuse to toss out the excess, for the least of allegations.  In the Sexual Assaults report, an allegation, even if unproven, of inappropriate contact or words, is sufficient to discharge from the military.  Innocent until proven guilty isn't applied.  There are cases of individuals allegedly slapping someone's butt in a line of Troops, where insufficient evidence exists to prove misconduct, yet the individual was tossed out.

How About a Little Income Equalization?

Did you hear the news?  The Income gap between the rich and poor has widened.  The Organization of Economically Developed Countries came out with their list based on 2008 incomes and it "isn't pretty" for the United States.  Now, I've seen how some of the rest of the world lives, and I've seen how those "below the poverty line" in the United States live, so I was curious what it actually meant.  I'll get to their recommendations to "fixing it," later.

Evidently, the average income of the top 10% of Americans is $114,000/year.  Now, I'm not sure how this works, but according to the CIA, 30% of Americans are in the top 10% of income earners, while only 2% are in the bottom 10% making $7,800/year.  But if one goes with OECD data, that puts the average income at $60,900/year.  That's not bad for an economy that produces $47,200/year in actual goods (GDP per capita).  Of course, if we only count the workforce, we produce $95,257/year in actual value, and that is pretty impressive.  But the disparity between the top 10% and the bottom 10%, according to the OECD is 14.6x.

The OECD didn't make it easy to find the data, and they didn't examine disparities in places like China or North Korea, but it appears even the CIA finds that information difficult.  Still, the OECD did find some "shining examples" of places that do it better, like Download OECD-France Inequality, Download OECD-ItalyInequality, & Download OECD-Spain Inequality.  Since these are in the top 10% of economic powers, perhaps we should do what they are doing to alleviate this disparity.  France has a disparity of the top 10% and bottom 10% of only 7x while Spain is at 10.9 and Italy is at 10.1.

How could they possibly achieve such numbers?  The Average income (using the same formula above) is $42,574 in France, $33,106 in Italy, and $25,349 in Spain.  While OECD didn't give the data to figure out what the bottom 10% in the US earn per hour, it works out to $8.49/hr in France, $3.40/hr in Italy, and $3.24/hr in Spain.  The French produce $73,158/workforce member, while the Italians produce $71,245 and Spaniards produce $59,290. 

We can reduce the disparity in income here too, if we did what they did.  According to the CIA, the US tax burden is 14.7% as opposed to France 48.4%, Italy 46.7% and Spain 35.7%.  Take a look at your gross income on your paystub.  Are you willing to take half of that so we can all make the same amount?

Bradley Manning: Sex, Lies, & Espionage

So, Bradley Manning's excuse for betraying Our Nation is he's gay:

"The defense revealed that Manning had written to one of his supervisors in Baghdad before his arrest, saying he was suffering from gender-identity disorder. He included a picture of himself dressed as a woman and talked about how it was affecting his ability to do his job and even think clearly."¹

In 1992, he would have been asked by recruiters prior to enlistment if he were or ever had been homosexual.  He would have been asked by Security Clearance investigators the same question.  It would have disqualified him for a clearance and entry into the military.

In 2002, he would not have been asked, but had he told, he would have been removed from the military.  In 2009 & 2010, when he told that he was homosexual, he was supposed to have been removed from the military.  The picture above comes from Manning's FB page and was posted prior to his arrest.  His defense for his crimes is that his homosexuality drove him to commit espionage.  His spymaster's (Julian Assange) defense against sexual assault charges is that his homosexuality prevents him from having (wanted to have) assaulted those women.

Manning's defense specifically asked the investigators if they had looked for the gay defense evidence.

"We already knew before we arrived that Pfc. Manning was a homosexual," Special Agent Toni Graham said.

Veterans Don't Want Your Pity...

... not even if you call it "compassion, sympathy," or "intellectual empathy."  We are not "victims," even if you prefer to use the term "survivors."  Why do I bring this up?  For years, the media has been portraying Veterans and Troops as victims of circumstances beyond their control.  Recently, even the Washington Post (please note that the gratitude demonstrated by Kid Rock should not be confused with pity of intellectuals) noted that Veterans and Troops feel the pity of Citizens, rather than Respect, for what we have done.  But more to the point, a particular reader has been attempting to justify her feelings of sympathy for our "misfortune" to me.  She has changed the labels, over time, as I've explained why we don't want pity, and how we are not victims, but the underlying attitude has not changed.

In recent decades, it has become unpopular to use words that define certain things.  Instead, alternate words are used to re-label the same concept, in a more politically correct manner, altering the meaning of the new word, while not changing the reality of that being defined.  Sometimes, these new labels are applied for political purposes, such as changing "War" to "Overseas Contingency Operation," which does nothing to alter the reality on the ground.  When an enemy is setting off explosives and shooting bullets at you, it doesn't matter what the politicians want to call it, it is combat, even if they label an Infantryman a "Non-Combat Troop," and the enemy, "man-made disaster makers."

What is a victim?  According to Merriam-Webster:

 

Sex Crimes in the Military

There are facts and suppositions, followed by hype and speculation, that swirl around the question of sexual assaults, rape, and deviant behavior in the Military.  Fortunately, actual facts and figures are also available, even if under-reported in the media.  Unfortunately, some of the data is still presented in murky terms.  Let's face it, politics and social causes do not always want to report the facts.

I have not weighed in on this issue previously, because I didn't have the hard data to provide a true assessment.  Fortunately, I now have a copy of the Download DoD_Fiscal_Year_2010_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault_in_the_Military (2) report on the issue.  There is good news in it, but it is a very long report, 622 pages.  And even at that, I contend that some of the data is defined poorly. 

I have NO sympathy for perpetrators of sexual crimes.  It appalls me that some that wear the uniform commit such crimes, but I also recognize that Our Troops come from all walks of life, and represent a small slice of the civilian population from which they are drawn.  I find that the punishments in both civilian and military life for these crimes is insufficient, but also that the majority of Americans would not support the severity of what I do believe to be appropriate.

Also, I recognize the reasons why a victim of sexual assault might decide not to report the crime, or to decide not to pursue prosecution, though I wish that all victims would pursue prosecution to the maximum extent of the law.  I know victims that have not reported it, that did not even tell me, until it was beyond anyone's ability to take the appropriate actions.  I would encourage those that are victims of such crimes to report it as soon as possible, and to seek the counsel of a trusted leader if they are in doubt as to how to handle it.  The NCO's I've known and respected have taken as dismal an opinion of the criminals involved as have I.

I also have a strong belief in the right of the accused to a fair trial, and to face their accusers.  I have known some that have been falsely accused and some that falsely accused others, almost exclusively in the civilian world.  The American Justice system rests on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and this does make prosecution difficult in many cases of sexual assault.

So, on to the good news!  Of all investigations initiated by the military, prior to October 1st, 2009, only 45 were incomplete as of October 1st, 2010 and 1,614 investigations were completed in FY10 of new cases (3,158).  And of the Combat Zone reports in FY 2010 only 163 (251 victims) of the alleged attackers were in the military.  I would like to present the comparison to FBI data of similar crimes in the civilian population, but my searches for that information provided me with only estimates, rather than with the hard statistics I've looked at in previous years.

Of the cases resolved (1614 of those completed in 2010, including 980 initiated in prior years), only 85% were alleged to have been a US Service member attacker.  There were 1759 victims in those cases and 26% were "wrongful sexual contact" as opposed to rape (28%) or aggravated sexual assault (30%).  Disciplinary action was taken in 1,025 cases in FY2010, but not taken in 910 cases.  The primary reason for no punitive actions were that the victim declined to participate in the case (334 cases) or a lack of evidence (335 cases).  In 344 cases, the defendant was cleared of a sexual crime (101 cases cleared of all wrongdoing).  In some cases, the US Military did not have jurisdiction (i.e. the defendant was not US Military) or was completely unknown.

I must stress, the cases involved include those that are not a Violent Criminal Sexual Attack.  They do include inappropriate sexually based actions.  I wish I could break down the statistics precisely, but the information is just not presented well enough, even in 622 pages, to be 100% what the breakdown is.  And even where the information is precise, it sometimes conflicts with itself (minorly) in the same report.

But there is also supposition in the report.  And that has been used by politicians and "activists" to misportray reality.  In fact, in researching the information here, I came across a politician who seems to do so purposefully, or for lack of ability to read.  As I mentioned, I understand why a victim would choose not to report.  I know more victims of sexual assault than I care to believe is "normal," in American society.  And those are almost exclusively civilian sector attacks.  But how does one accurately assess the true incidence of sexual assault versus the number reported?

In order to combat sexual crimes, one must make potential victims and potential heroes aware of how to report it, how to stop it, and ensure that authority figures know how to not make it worse should it occur.  The Military has gone to great lengths to make sure all Service Members have the information necessary to not only stop an assault, but to ensure that the criminals are prosecuted and removed from the ranks.  By doing so, this increases the percentage of victims that will report it.  That is a good thing.

More than 92% of US Troops have faith in the Military System to do the right thing, and believe that they have been given sufficient information to take the correct actions, should they become aware of such a crime.  The Military has a system in place that completely protects a victim, even should they be unwilling to "go on the record."  It is called a "restricted report."  What this means is that victims are more likely to report a sexual assault in the Military than outside the Military.  There are literally layers of leaders and specialists to go to.  A victim does not have to ask a stranger (Law Enforcement) to believe them, nor to tell someone that knows them.  They can get personal help, even if they aren't willing to take the stand in prosecuting the culprit.

But there is a percentage of Troops in the Military who report "unwanted sexual contact" in blind surveys.  What does that mean?  Well, for one person, it may be a hand on the shoulder from someone they suspect of wanting more, while for another it may be an "accidental" bump that they don't think was accidental, or for another an intentional placement of the hand on the butt or thigh.  Quite frankly, the question is flawed and subjective.  That extrapolated percentage is 4.4% of females and 0.9% of males.  It is extrapolated, because they didn't ask everyone and then they used the percentages to suggest how many might have experienced it.  "They" then surmised that more than 19,000 Troops (of more than 1.4 Million) had experienced an "unwanted sexual contact."  From that, "they" suggested that "unwanted sexual contacts" were reported only 29% of the time.

That politician I mentioned?  She turned that "unwanted sexual contact" into "sexual assault."  Yeah, that's a LOT more dramatic.  She also turned the statistics around.  Instead of that representing 29% of reported "unwanted sexual contacts," it became 13% of reported "sexual assaults."  The press (ABC) took her "statistics" as gospel, without reading the 622 page report for themselves.  She is Rep Jackie Speier, D-CA.  She got 44 co-sponsors (in 24 hours) for her bill based on the erroneous information, and introduced a new Non-Profit to profit off of the falsehoods.  And that was reported on the 17th of November, i.e. last week.

There were 3,158 reports of sexual misconduct in the military, including 2,410 unrestricted reports and 882 restricted reports, filed in 2010.  Of those, 134 of the restricted reports were later converted to unrestricted.  That means that 2,410 cases (of all sexual misconduct) can be investigated and 747 cannot be prosecuted, but those 747 can get the victim assistance they need. If DoD's percentages are correct, that would be less than 11,000 cases of sexual misconduct (as opposed to the larger number of cases of "unwanted sexual contact" or the smaller number of those that would be rape.)  But 92+% in the military trust the military to do the right thing, so even that number seems high.

Of those 2,410 reports in 2010, 1033 were reported within 3 days, while another 619 were reported within 1 month, and 378 forensic examinations were performed, including those that filed 111 'restricted reports.'  This affects the capacity to prosecute cases because the least subjective evidence is the forensic evidence, and the greater the amount of time after the incident, the harder it is to prove.  37% of victims declined to participate in prosecution of the culprit, which further complicates the ability to put criminals behind bars.  Without the testimony of the victim, which should not be compelled against her will but should compel every protection for her, prosecution may be impossible.  93% of all Service Members understood their responsibility to stop a sexual assault if they were to witness it.

ONE sexual assault IS too many, but again we have to realize that the Military is a small slice from across the American population.  The Military must (and does) prosecute and toss out those bad apples, but no test will 100% prevent them from slipping through the screening process.  It does no  good to inflate the numbers (aside from those that profit financially or politically from inflated numbers).

So, how do we "fix" this?  First, by accurately reflecting the problem.  Secondly, by ensuring the potential victims understand that Military Leaders won't tolerate the scumbags that do it.  Thirdly, by ensuring that false accusations (as opposed to unsubstantiated cases) are prosecuted as well.  I.e. by ensuring the actual criminals are punished severely and that the innocents are protected.  The "innocents" being those falsely accused and those attacked.  Persecutions of those unjustly accused simply adds to the disbelief against those that falsely portray their innocence.  Future "juries" of one's peers should not be contaminated by the memory of someone they know to have been unjustly prosecuted.  We have to rely on the evidence and facts, despite knowing that some of the guilty will go free.

And for the bad news.  Ten percent of those unrestricted reports and 13% of those restricted reports were male victims.  This is not the kind of thing the proponents of the repeal of DADT want to talk about.  Why?  Because that means there IS a problem, even in the military where homosexuality was not allowed, with homosexual sexual violence.  It means there is a HUGE sexual violence problem in the sexual crimes of secretly homosexual community.  Even Rep Speier included this male-male sexual violence.  One-third of those she put on stage were male victims and 1/2 of those quoted by the ABC report were.  If there is an under-reported aspect to sexual violence, it is homosexual (male-male) sexual attacks. 

And here, I will go to the Download DoJ Rape Survey 2010, because I can't find their hard facts.  The DoJ finds, through contracted surveys that 1 in 1000 adult men, 92,748, are raped 1.2x annually, and that 90% of them are raped by men.  It estimates there are 876,064 cases of females raped annually, or 8.7 rapes per 1000 women. That is ONLY rape, not the additional categories of sexual crimes reported by the Department of Defense. 

And those numbers get considerably worse.  The Survey suggests that 1.9% of all American male kids and 9.0% of female children were raped.  It says that .8% of the females were raped by females and 89% of males were raped by males.  It says that 21.6% of female children raped were less than 12 years old and 48% of males raped were less than 12.  If true, that means 9,062,730 women were raped as a child, and 1,762,212 males were, including 1,548,369 men that were raped by men, when they were still a kid.  It means that 72,502 women were raped by women when they were kids.

According to the DoJ survey, 743,217 American men were raped before they were 12 years old, 661,463 of them being raped by a homosexual male.  That is 60,133 cases of homosexual rape on boys under 12, every year.  Why is the lesser number of male victims relevant.  Because there are fewer homosexual males conducting a larger percentage of rapes than there are heterosexual males doing the same.  According to some, between 2% and 13% of the population is homosexual. If we go with 10%, that means out of a population of 9,274,800 homosexual men, 661,463 male children under 12 were raped, or an incidence rate of 7.13% of the population, or 16.7% of boys raped before they were 18, contrasted with 9% of all female children and 14.8% of ALL women who have been raped during their entire lifetime.

ALL rape is despicable but the rape of children is far more despicable because the victim is robbed of innocence, is scarred for life, and is unable to defend themselves.  I did not set out to highlight the incidence of homosexual sexual predators, nor did I expect to come across that information.  It's not "politically correct" to mention such things.  But not talking about it does not make it go away.

What else should be done?  Well, one must also look at who are the victims and who are the perpetrators of the crimes.  Overwhelmingly, these are lower ranks and younger individuals.  Why is that pertinent?  Well, because if we are to accurately gauge the difference between military and civilian assaults we must know what age group we are comparing, on both sides of the coin.

And with the majority of sexual assaults in the military occurring among those under 26, the closest data we have is sexual assaults on College Campuses.  According to some estimates, the rate of rape at College is between 20% and 25% of all female students.  And, one in 12 male college students admitted activity that met legal definitions of rape.  In comparison, Our Troops are boy scouts, even if one were to believe the worst case "estimates."

What else can we do to prevent the problem?  Instruct ALL women in self-defense and situational awareness.  It is NEVER the fault of the victim, even if she's walking naked through a drug infested ghetto, and even if she's known for promiscuity, but knowing what NOT to do, knowing what to do, can mean she's never in the situation.  It is always the criminal's fault for the crimes he commits, but if we empower women to exact pain on the perpetrator, fewer cases will exist for prosecution.

I am under no illusion that sexual assault will ever be 100% reported or 100% eliminated, whether in or out of the Military.  It should never be condoned or covered up.  There will always be a few cases of false allegations and there must always be a presumption of innocence.  But when we catch a sexual predator, we must investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.  We cannot force victims to relive the crime, and must protect them to the extent legally possible, but that protection must include the encouragement to put the criminal behind bars for the longest possible time, to prevent the possibility of other victims.  And because even one attack is too many, we should not attempt to falsify the numbers for political or financial purposes.

It appears that in 2010 there were approximately 884 allegations of rape in the military and if the 29% report rate is close to being right, approximately 3,050 total rapes, in a population of 1.65 Million, or an incident rate of less than 1.85 per 1000, which is far less than the civilian population, and extremely less than the college population (250 per 1000), which is the closest comparison in demographics.

UPDATE: Of FY2010 cases in the US Army, 791 Service Members, of 956 assailants, were alleged in the crimes against 945 victims, including 690 Service Members.   There were 396 allegations of rape against a Soldier (474 allegations total), 93 Soldiers of 120 allegations of Non-consensual Sodomy, 287 Soldiers of 326 cases alleged to have committed Aggravated Sexual Assault, and 32 of 37 allegations against Soldier of Aggavated Sexual Contact. There 365 allegations (of 433 cases) of Abusive or Wrongful Sexual Contact or Indecent Assault.  Allegations of sexual misconduct were more likely to occur in non-combat rather than combat areas.

The Army closed 1028 cases in FY2010.  300 (29%) were court-martialed.  161 Allegations (15.6%) were deemed to have insufficient evidence to proceed, following an investigation.  Of the 131 cases 12.7% where the victim chose not to participate in prosecution, 1 suspect was court-martialed and 26 were given Non-Judicial Punishment. 65 cases (6.3%) were tried by non-US Military authorities (civilian or foreign military).  8 Defendants and 3 Victims died prior to prosecution. 

The Army investigates EVERY "unrestricted" allegation of sexual assault, with an average investigation time of 93 days.  As of October 1, 2010, 520 of 1390 investigations initiated in 2010 were pending completion. 41% of (572) victims reported the crime within 72 hours, while 7% (102) reported it after a full year.  42% (582) of non-combat zone attacks occured on weekends. 935 of the crimes occured between 6pm and 6am (off-duty hours).  11 victims filing an unrestricted report and 15 filing an unrestricted report, reported an incident that occured prior to entrance in the US Army.

50 of 373 resticted cases involved a male victim, while in 27 cases the sex of the victim was not reported. 4 of 37 restricted cases in a combat zone involved a male victim.

Looking through the cases (posted in this section), it appears a great number are between Initial Entry Trainees and a good number of the cases involve groping, rather than rape.

If there is one thing that the US Military should be good at, it is defining the terms used, but they always seem to throw in a catchall, general term on top of an otherwise specific definition.  Some of the definitions they include are:

 

For the purpose of this Directive and SAPR awareness training and education, the term ‘sexual assault’ is defined as intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent. Sexual assault includes rape, forcible sodomy (oral or anal sex), and other unwanted sexual contact that is aggravated, abusive, or wrongful (to include unwanted and inappropriate sexual contact), or attempts to commit these acts.

Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 6495.01, is current as of October 6, 2005.

‘Consent’ means words or overt acts indicating a freely given Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)  Program

"Restricted Reporting:" Allows a Service member to report or disclose to specified officials that he orshe has been the victim of a sexual assault. This reporting option gives the member access to medical care, counseling, and victim advocacy, without requiring those specific officials to automatically report the matter to law enforcement or initiate an official investigation.

DoDD 6495.01. Washington, DC: DoD. E2.1.10 *Note: Victims in California cannot submit to a forensic examination while maintaining victim confidentiality.  In all other areas of the military, victims of rape can submit to a forensic examination with confidentiality.  In such cases, the evidence is maintained for 11 months, before the victim must decide to unrestrict the report, for purposes of prosecution, or allow the evidence to be destroyed at the 1 year mark.  This affects victims in Arizona as well, since the treatment center is in California.

 

DoDD 6495.01 defines Unrestricted Reporting as: A Service member who is sexually assaulted and desires medical treatment, counseling, and an official investigation of his or her allegation should use existing reporting channels (e.g., chain of command, law enforcement, or report the incident to the SARC). When notified of a reported sexual assault, the SARC will immediately assign a [SAPR] VA. Additionally, at the victim’s discretion or request, the healthcare provider shall arrange a SAFE (forensic examination) to be conducted, which may include the collection of evidence. Details regarding the incident will be limited to only those personnel who have a legitimate need to know.

Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definition included both attempted and completed rape. 
Department of Justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ignoring the Threat of China

Few would deny that China's red star is rising in the world.  In recent years, China has completed the Yellow River Dam, became the largest foreign debt holder of the US Government, and taken over shelf space in American Stores.  Relations between the US and China during the Cold War were a chilly alliance of convenience aimed at developing fear that China would capitalize on any US-Soviet confrontation, by taking over the undefended scraps of the Soviet's soft undefended underbelly.

In decades past, the Chinese had one primary military asset, that could not be ignored: A Billion People they could throw at a regional threat.  And they demonstrated how effective that could be in the Korean War.  When Americans pushed the North Korean Army to the Northern reaches of the Korean Peninsula, the Chinese sent their hordes over the frozen Yalu River to force a standstill that protected Communism's southern flank in Asia. 

The parallels to Task Force Smith can not be ignored today.  Following WWII, President Truman had so slashed the military that North Korea (along with the Soviets and Chinese Communists) felt emboldened to take the rest of Korea by force.  The most that could be mustered to stop the invasion was a small task force, ill-equipped with outdated arms.  The United States alone lost 38,516 Troops alone in a war often forgotten, while more than 778,000 Allied Troops, 2.5 Million civilians, and more than 1.1 Million North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet Troops died in the war that has not been ended officially, and ended in a stalemate of lines in the same place it started.

A Veteran's Voice for the Warrior's Honor

People often note a candor about Veterans.  Sometimes it's interpreted as crankiness.  Sometimes it comes across as righteous indignation.  Some find it as a refreshing quality while others envy the authority with which Veterans speak about matters of National Defense, necessity of sacrifice to maintain Freedom, and the recognition that evil exists in the world.

The military will change a man.  Combat gives a man experiences that will alter his tolerances for everyday life.  Clear, concise communication isn't just a luxury, but a necessity in a life that changes from intense boredom to life piercing adrenaline in split seconds.  One must learn vigilance in details at points of both boredom and excitement, while preventing tunnel vision, if one is to protect those that he relies on to protect him.

To protect Our Citizens from atrocious enemies, a Soldier sacrifices luxury, sleep, and time with his kids, wife, and family.  To protect Our Nation & Our Freedoms, he sacrifices a tiny bit of his Soul.  He gives away the comfort of innocence, of the naivete of never having stared evil in its eyes.  A Combat Veteran has walked boldly into the very gates of Hell, to prevent as many demons as possible from visiting Our Citizens in their lives of luxury.

California City Bans Fireworks on the 4th

A 4th of July without fireworks?  I was recently made aware of just that, where else but in California? In An American Carol, Leslie Neilson opens with a story of how the 4th of July was saved from a group of miscreants attempting to ban the holiday.  It was released to theaters in 2008.  In 2009, a California town banned fireworks.  It claimed that it cost too much to patrol the beaches for criminals preying on its citizens and visitors.  Instead, the city preys on its citizenry which might want to celebrate:

"The Monterey Police Department would like to remind everyone that ALL fireworks are prohibited within the city limits of Monterey.  Officers will be out to enforce the ban through the holiday weekend.  Fines for violation of the ban start at $1000.00" LT Leslie Sonne

To ensure fireworks wouldn't return to the budget, the city spent $20,000 to sink the barge that was used to launch them.  Is this life imitating art?

Uglier Than War

"...War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. " John Stuart Mill

Our Nation, or rather Our Military, has been at war for nearly a decade.  In reality, we have been fighting for nearly a decade, though we have been at war for far longer.  For decades, we ignored the attacks of the enemy, we ignored the declarations of war of the enemy.  They were far off and easily forgotten, by all but the families of the affected.  We ignored the senseless murder of far off civilians oppressed by the same enemy.

Those that desire to oppress, to expand their own power and ideology, are not of the same mind, but often their greed brings them to ally themselves of fellow oppressors, even of diabolically opposing ideologies.  The ideologies of similarity often finds itself in opposition to would be allies, as did the national Socialism of the Nazi Empire to the Communistic Socialism of the Soviet Empire.  Democratically elected politicians find value in distorting the realities of "allies" and "enemies" to rally the people to a cause or away from an action.

"When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice--is often the means of their regeneration." John Stuart Mill

The State of the War & World

It is understandable that not everyone understands the reason we cover the news we do, or how drug violence in  Mexico, nationalization of grocery stores in Venezuela, "bank robberies" in Baghdad, and protests in Syria or Cairo can possibly related.  Others believe there is a nefarious, secret council that is not only plotting, but implementing a plan to take over the world.  How does the average citizen come to conclusions of what is real, what is connected, and what is overreaching the bounds of reasonable conclusion, i.e. nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Let's be frank, but not paranoid, there are individuals which conspire to advance their power.  They're often called political parties, and while they will avoid the term conspire, their means are to increase their group and personal power through conspiring together with a common theme and goal.  But to think that political opponents are nothing more than puppets to a small group of secret power mongers would ignore the fact that other groups also vie for that same power.

The world is in fact at a key point in history.  After decades, centuries even, of oppression, the people of the Middle East are rising up and demanding change.  But not every participant in the protests has the same ideals of what government should be.  Not every protest is led by people of the same ideals, and not every person holding a sign understands who they are following.  It is puzzling how the Administration in Washington is choosing whom to back and who to attempt to ignore.

When National Diversity Bulldozes Minority Heroes

Two Barelas, NM Heroes gave their lives in an unpopular war and the local community gathered in April, 1970 to dedicate a park to the Marines.  Sgt Pete Padilla and Pfc Manuel Mora volunteered, served, and died in Viet Nam.  It shocked their families when the park was bulldozed for the National Hispanic Cultural Center in February 1999, but it continues to wound the families as parents fall prey to old age.  No one asked the families if it were ok, or even told them it would be done.  It has cost $50 Million to raze the park honoring 2 Heroes and build the center honoring Atzlans.

Since then, the families have been fighting the foundation to honor their sons, with a trail of broken promises.  The current promise is to put the parks on 4 acres behind the buildings, along a ditch, costing $250,000.  The bids are in for the promise, but an earlier plan was to name the amphitheater or the torreon, which was instead named for Manny Aragon, a former politician, now in jail for fraud.  Sure, they removed his name after he was convicted, but it says alot about priorities when two Marines names are bulldozed, and a fraudulent politician is honored.

Eleven years later, the families of these Marines live on hope that this promise won't be broken.  It won't be what they once had, but it's better than the nothing they've been given as change for progress in the meantime.

PTSD: A Political Football and Sensationalist Story

Rarely do I discuss PTSD and there's a reason for it.  Most of what is written about it is sensationalist, inflated, and aimed in one way or another to attain money for someone.  It's a political football that those that know the truth feel powerless to discuss honestly for being perceived as callous and uncaring.  And most efforts surrounding PTSD are counter-productive to actually preventing or assisting the individual touched by it.

Let's start with the acknowledgement that PTSD is real and those facing the challenge should be given every tool in dealing with it.  This isn't just the responsibility of the Military because our political leaders sent Warriors onto the battlefield.  It's a basic employer responsibility to deal with the health issues resulting from the terms of employment.  The current moves by the Administration to place greater financial burden on Veterans to pay for their own health care, for wounds caused by their employment by the federal government isn't just an outrage because they were promised healthcare in return for the risks they took, but a basic outrage of any (self-insured) employer that tries to get out of responsibilities to cover on the job injuries.

I will also point out that no one survives the battlefield unchanged.  While these changes will appear alien to civilians who have never experienced the battlefield, these changes are not necessarily bad.  Some of the "symptoms" associated with PTSD are very positive, though may need refinement to not scare civilians.  And there are differences between battlefield PTSD and civilians who have experienced a traumatic event and are scarred by it.  Even while some symptoms may be the same, the causes mean treatments must be different. 

Columbia University Heckles War Hero; Defund Them

"Peace by persuasion has a pleasant sound, but I think we should not be able to work it. We should have to tame the human race first, and history seems to show that that cannot be done."  Mark Twain in a Letter to William T. Stead, 1/9/1899

While Columbia University has not had a ROTC Office in 4 decades, it does not shy away from weighing in on Military Debates.  Contrary to the Geneva Conventions, one of its professors claimed that the US Constitution, not the Geneva Conventions and International Law were the basis for holding trials and giving unearned rights to terrorists captured on the Battlefield.

Yeah, the same University that invited Ahdimijihadist to speak there bans ROTC from its campus and its students heckle Wounded Warriors that are members of its student body.  The leader of the terrorist world was cheered mere miles from the site of the 9/11 attacks, a place he tried to visit, and was denied by NYC.

Discussing the Arguments Against Women in Combat Units

 
First, I went over the arguments used to call for allowing women to have any Military Speciality they desire.  So far, no one has provided any arguments I missed, nor provided any rational debate that I was wrong in those discussions.  That article is the place to discuss those arguments.

There is an outstanding point I need to elaborate on and that is the nature of Female Engagement Teams.  They're important but they don't have a combat mission.  They are better trained in combat than most non-combat teams.  While I need to elaborate on that, that's a different article, all its own, so if you want the scoop on them, I recommend using the search bar in the upper left which will give you links to stories we've published as well as other military related sites.  "FET" or "Female Engagement Teams" will give you focused results.

The focus in this article are the arguments used against putting women in Combat MOS's.  All arguments I've heard rest on the principle that National Defense and the lives of Our Troops are more important than Political Correctness or the personal desires of individuals to claim glory.  Let's look at those arguments and again, if I miss one, feel free to let me know.

 

Discussing the Arguments FOR Women in Combat Units

Last week, activists floated the balloon that the Congressionally appointed "Military Leadership Diversity Commission" would recommend that women would be allowed to serve in Combat Positions.  The report is due to Congress in March, so the leak allows them a chance to tailor their arguments to overcome the ensuing opposition.  The concept of the argument for the change is that its about "equal opportunity," but the proponents have the advantage of keeping their specific arguments secret while observing what the opposition will say.  [FETeam in action.]

As is typical of this kind of debate, the proponents of the change dismiss any that oppose them as "male chauvinists," "sexists," or "immature."  In doing so, they are able to ignore the actual discussion and evidence against their position, while failing to actually produce evidence that a change is needed.  The arguments against a change in policy are far from unified and run the gambit from enemy actions to human realities.

Typical of the debate is the attempt by one of the most capable, Uncle Jimbo, to discuss the pitfalls with activist Eve Chase on Russia TV, with a moderator who clearly favored Eve's argument.  Uncle Jimbo is as capable on the battlefield as he is in a battle of wits, but his argument was undermined by the fact he was distracted by the woman in front of him.  He allowed the two women to railroad and ignore him while proudly proclaiming he was able to secure drinks afterward.  While, it was apparent to all but the two women involved in their own discussion, his words and style of argument may have been gentlemanly, but his eyes were focused on Eve's attributes, whenever the pair weren't paying attention to him (which was pretty much the entire "debate").

Let's look at the primary arguments of the proponents of women in Combat MOS's (Military Occupation Speciality, ie. jobs):

"Current policy prevents career progression of women."  This is patently untrue.  Under current policy, women have attained the highest ranks of the military in the NCO Corps, Warrant Corps, and Officer Corps.  These promotions to the highest ranks have occurred in less than 3 decades of women serving in the Army, which means they've attained those ranks faster than the average Soldier makes the same ranks. Compare: General David Petraeus and General Ann Dunwoody Biographies.

"Current policy prevents awards recognizing the Valor of women."  Also false.  Two females have already received the Silver Star in the War On Terror.  One earned the Medal in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan.  There are mulitple awards of the Bronze Star for Valor to females. 

The Medal of Honor has or has not been awarded to a woman depending on who you ask.  There is a case of it being awarded to a Civil War female civilian and revoked as it is not authorized to civilians.  The brass are desperate to do so and I still contend that Jessica Lynch would have been the first if it weren't for her integrity.  She was the one that stepped forward to tell the world the DoD storyline was untrue.  Compare SGT Leigh Hester Silver Star to MSG Anthony Pryor Silver Star.  Compare MSG David Miles Silver Star to SGT Monica Brown's Silver Star, both medics.

"Women are already serving and dying in combat."  This statement is true but it implies a falsehood.  Women have served in combat zones since before Desert Storm.  Most MOS's are open to women and the positions those MOS's fill are open to females at Combat Brigade and higher level commands throughout the military.  They are open to females in all non-Combat Brigades throughout the military.  Many of those units (and hence females) do in fact see some combat.

An example of an MOS open to women but a position that is not is Combat Medic in an Infantry Squad.  A Combat Medic on an MP truck is open to a female, and that medic is very likely to see combat action, but does not operate in the same conditions, nor are MPs (regardless of what they like to think) designed to "close with and destroy the enemy."  An MP is almost always in a "mounted patrol," i.e. riding in a vehicle, whereas an Infantry Patrol, even Mechanized Infantry, must have the capacity to carry their life on their backs.  Infantry and other combat positions are the units that conduct combat as a way of life, rather than responding to combat when the enemy gets bold.

There is a big difference between manning a machine gun in a turret and carrying a machine gun for days and miles at a time before assaulting the objective.

"The military records cheat those women out of noting their combat experience."  Patently false.  The military maintains a record of the units and places served.  As with the medals, women are also authorized to be awarded the Combat Action Badge.  The individual Soldier receives a copy of all orders of assignments and can further document their roles if they lack trust in the military paperwork system.  (I recommend that they do, as all military paperwork is prone to loss in the bureacracy.)

"Women are denied combat training because they aren't in Combat MOS's."  Partially true.  Because women are not assigned to Ranger or Special Forces positions, they are not authorized to attend those schools.  These schools are not open to the peers of women either.  It costs a lot of money to send a Soldier to those schools, so there must be an Army need to do so.  Unless you're the supply clerk at a Ranger Company, you're not going to go to Ranger School as a supply sergeant and even then, you'll be at the bottom of their list.  The supply sergeant at a Special Forces Company is not going to the SF Qualification Course, unless he's changing his MOS to 18 series. Neither do women compete for promotion against those MOS's, so it doesn't effect their career progression.

Women get 100% of the combat training that every other person in their unit gets.  They go to the same Basic Combat Training as men and the same Advanced Individual Training as every other person in their MOS.  They don't have to pass the same physical fitness standards as men, even in the same MOS.

"FET (Female Engagement Teams) prove women are already in combat."  No, FETeams are not combat operations.  They are patently not combat operations.  They are particularly important because of culture and cultural myths involved in the War in Afghanistan.  They engage female Afghans in conversation and may even search females.  The moment a FETeam attempts to search a male Afghan, things would go south quick.  Every Soldier/Marine is trained for certain aspects of combat and these teams require particular attention in such training due to their nature, but their mission is NOT to seek out and destroy the enemy.  Here's one story of a FETeam.  Feel free to search the site for more (upper left sidebar).

"Today's assymetrical warfare is different than historical linear warfare."  Yes, it is, but regardless of what pundits and politicians want to say, the current war does not define the next war.  Linear warfare can break out on the Korean Peninsula, the Island of Taiwan, or even the Border with Mexico.  In fact, the Iraq War began as linear warfare and Iran threatens war of the same traditional style of combat, before it too would turn into assymetrical warfare.  Even in the strategy of US COIN operations, Infantry go on long foot patrols climbing mountains before assaulting an enemy objective.  That is far different to reacting to an IED or SAF(small arms fire) ambush on a mounted patrol where the heaviest thing worn is body armor.

I cannot explain what the real reasons are that there is again a push to put women in combat MOS's, but none of the arguments I've heard hold water.  This is not about "equal opportunity."  But I can tell you that if EO programs were not abused by women, there would be much less opposition to putting women in Combat MOS's. 

And I will straight up call any Veteran a liar that says they don't know of multiple cases of EO being used as a means of retribution of a leader someone didn't like or to get out of UCMJ action for breaking regulations, unless that person never served around women.  It is a rampant abuse of the system and undermines true equality in the military.  Even an allegation of an EO complaint can ruin a Soldier's career, hence even the threat of a false allegation can and does get violaters of UCMJ out of trouble.

The false allegations in the EO complaint system are particularly detrimental to equal opportunity.  The sheer volume casts doubt on every case brought up in the minds of those that are aware of the case, as well as those that must adjudicate it.  Real cases of sexual harrasment or sexual discrimination suffer because EO is so often used as a blunt assault against good leaders or to escape punishment that is deserved.

With the arguments for a change in policy holding no weight, I will in a later article discuss the arguments for maintaining the current policy.  In a third article, I will provide examples of the current system as relates to the debate.

Related articles

Two Female US Soldiers Sue to End Ban on Women in Combat

When is Violence the Answer?

The pacifist crowd is quite curious.  While they would have us believe that "violence is never the answer," a great deal of violence is committed in the name of pacifism.  The unreported attacks on Miltary Recruiting Offices, University Laboratories, and even home construction by groups espousing pacifism or animal rights is a prime example not only of the violence of pacifists, but the MSM cover-up of their less savory cousins.  More often, the pacifist elitists attempt to incite violence through aggressive rhetoric.  This is demonstrated in a recent post at This Ain't Hell.

Does anybody remember the outrage about Muslims being murdered in Bosnia?  Does anyone remember the outrage that the world stood by and watched the slaughter of Darfur?  Who stood up when Iran was raping and murdering Persians in the streets and in college dorms?  Tyrants do not care that foreign citizens are outraged or that diplomats publicly protest their atrocities.  They notice a bit more when their ports are blocked or sanctions are enforced, but as Saddam and Castro proved, the sanctions may effect their people, but not the largesse of the tyrant.  And if a tyrant is willing to abuse his own people, why would he care that they suffer a bit more so he can thumb his nose at the butting in of the world body?

Return to a Eunuch Military?

Ages past, rulers trusted their most prized possessions only to warriors neutered, physically, from sexual desire.  Eunuchs were stronger than common warriors and could be trusted to guard the kings' harems without any thought of succumbing to sexual desire or thoughts.  Their energies were focused solely on their mission.

Political Correctness seeks to neuter Our Troops.  General Order #1 forbids fun, and expression of sexual thoughts.  EO programs go beyond ensuring equal opportunity to creating a hangman's noose for any that verbalize sexual thoughts.  And yet, combat and sex are reflections of basic human instincts.  As Dave Grossman points out, combat and sex are closely related.

The recent "scandal" surrounding Capt Honors demonstrates not only the natural military means of dealing with sexual tensions in a humorous way, but also the political correct backlash to the public finding out that Troops maintain sexual thoughts, despite legislation to the contrary.  Combat not only is a base human action, but brings out base human needs.  The sexual tensions of Troops cannot be legislated, regulated, nor suppressed away.  The more suppressed it becomes, the greater the tension becomes.  It must have an outlet so long as Warriors are sexually intact.

PC Police Arrest USS Enterprise Captain Honor's Career

The latest Navy "scandal" provides an interesting look at the divide between Military and Civilian, between men and women, between what the protected want to believe about the Military and what the Military once was and traditions it has tried to protect from politcal correctness.

Not every civilian condemns the video of Captain Honors and not every veteran defends it, but the line is primarily drawn between those that have "been there" and those that never served.  In cases like this, to the great consternation of my subject matter expert, I ask a particular civilian for her perceptions, before providing any input.  I like to start with just the information provided in the media, then provide the fuller context (in this case the video), get the resulting perception, and then my Veteran input on the matter.  I don't want to corrupt the perceptions, because I want to know how effective the media has shaped the debate and how the more complete story does/does not change it, before I attempt to do so.

See comments at This Ain't Hell for the Veteran response.  It seems that Captain Honors has been taken down by the PC Police and for that reaction see this post at TAH.  Video and our original report here.  A page has however been setup on Facebook to defend his Honor.

Constitutional Ignorance Exposed

The fundamental problem with the politics of so many is stated by a Washington Post 'journalist' here:

 Key statements:
"It [The US Constitution] has no binding power on anything."
"The issue is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago."  (It was published September 17, 1787, 223 years ago.)

H/T to TAH, Iowahawk, and Ace of Spades.

If this were just one stupid pundit, we could all sit back and laugh at him and the education system that produced him, but it's not.  Several politicians in the last year have issued supporting statements to his ideology, i.e. that they will do what they want because the Constitution may not allow it, but no one is able to force them to act within its constraints.

The Long-Term Effects of Politics & DADT Repeal

Some days one must ask if the politicians are really so ignorant, how they can be so arrogant, or if they being as educated and intelligent as they proclaim are purposely attempting to undermine the Mission and the Military they sent to accomplish it?  One must ask which are the true believers of their efforts, which are the blind followers, and which are the knowing masterminds?  It is certain that this Congress has demonstrated a stubbornness in their ideologies and plans, loyal to unknown and unelected authors, and irrespective of the will of the people, but particularly careless of the Military.

This is demonstrated in bills that "must be passed to find out what is in them," as well as the passage of the DADT repeal while ignoring the DoD budget 3 months past the deadline to pay for operations ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The effects of the latter will not be immediately evident.  From the survey used to justify repeal, we know that as of today 30% of the Marine Corps is considering an exit strategy, because of repeal. 

Omnibus Politics & Specious Slogans

"National Defense" is becoming a more popular slogan for politicians.  The question of "paying for legislation" is being tossed at everything one opposes.  The "right to free speech" is used to defend lies & theft.  There comes a point when the most self-disciplined can no longer remain silent when the politicians go beyond the pale.

Yesterday, the Senate voted against voting to repeal DADT.  In response the Politician in Chief claimed that DADT was threatening National Security.  BS!  There is no shortage of Volunteers to join the military and the number removed from the military under DADT is less than 1 in 100,000.  More Soldiers commit suicide (which has a suicide rate as low or lower than the civilian population) than get tossed out for professing to sleep with members of the same sex.

The Words We Use

by Sharia Vigilant, 2008

When I read the title of Matthew Lee’s recent article ‘Jihadist’ booted from government lexicon I immediately thought, "oh great, more political correctness designed to avoid hurt feelings." I was pleasantly surprised to discover that’s not the case.

Terrorists who blow themselves up in markets to leave sobbing mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters in their bloody wake are not jihadist’s mujahideen and are certainly not Muslims.