Perspectives

Barack Obama? DAMN YOU!!!

 

I am sorry, but let me be clear:  What you have done to our precious Fallen Heroes (and their families) of our Military, has crossed MY 'red line'.  For your betrayal of that most sacred trust we all must hold with them, YOU are not fit to hold the highest office in the land I know and love as America.  You are also not remotely qualified - or worthy - to have the privilege of being Commander In Chief of one of the world's most dedicated armed forces:  the United States Military. 

Not only are you unqualified to be the President of the United States, you are also an out and out liar, and our Military and their families now are left in no doubt how hollow your words are:

 In March 2009 you said, as part of another of your never-ending empty rhetoric diatribes:

"For their service and sacrifice, warm words of thanks from a grateful nation are more than warranted, but they aren't nearly enough. We also owe our veterans the care they were promised and the benefits that they have earned. We have a sacred trust with those who wear the uniform of the United States of America. It's a commitment that begins at enlistment, and it must never end. But we know that for too long, we've fallen short of meeting that commitment. Too many wounded warriors go without the care that they need. Too many veterans don't receive the support that they've earned. Too many who once wore our nation's uniform now sleep in our nation's streets."

-President Barack Obama, March 19, 2009

Yes, I got that from *your own* White House site, where you then go on to post "Guiding Principles.   This under a huge sign that says, in what must be irony,  'Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date.  

I suggest that your website is most certainly NOT up to date, as your actions, and those of your administration prove, time and again, that your flowery oratory has been more than outpaced by your actions.

Marine takes torch as Spokesman for Sanity

Cpl Joshua Boston, former Marine, stepped into the spotlight following his open letter challenging Senator Feinstein's gun grab legislation, and calling Britain's Piers Morgan to return to the island of Banned Guns.  Boston is representing sanity fairly well though Obama has decided not to deport the gun hating Morgan who is on a crusade to scrap the Bill of Rights.

UPDATE: Piers Morgan was fired in May of 2004 from his Editor position at Britain's Daily Mirror for publication of falsified pictures of Troops mistreating Iraqi prisoners.

Meanwhile, someone claiming to have also been a Marine, decides to throw his two cents into the pool:

"Boston’s attitude towards authority is frankly disgusting and his open letter is wrong in both its assumptions about why the gun-control debate has become heated, and the reasons why we should care about his opinions at all. It implies that because he served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine, that he can choose which laws to obey while at home." "Anonymous Marine," as reported at This Ain't Hell 

Let's put this in another context: Politicians and journalists attitude towards the Supreme Law of the Land is frankly disgusting and their open contempt for the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect is wrong in both the arrogance that they are above the law, and the reasons why we should allow them to sit in their chairs at all.  It implies that because they won a popularity contest in the career pathes of the least trusted people in our Nation that they can choose which instances they will obey the Supreme Law of the Land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."  Article VI, US Constitution

In other words, the hierarchy of law is: The US Constitution (including Amendments), US Law made in accordance with the Constitution,  Treaties, and State Laws.  Any law that violates the provisions of the US Constitution is hence not a law, including treaties, including treaties with the UN.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Amendment II, US Constitution.

Activist judges included, any law that infringes on the Right of the People to keep and bear arms is hence illegal and NOT a law to begin with.  "Common Law" does not supercede the US Constitution, as the Judicial Branch is not given legislative authority, and are specifically bound by the US Constitution above and beyond their bounds of State and US Law, and common law legal proceedings which are also bound by the Law.

Hence, the only Constitutional or legal means by which that Right can be infringed is to amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd Amendment itself.  No Vice-President, President, Journalist, Judge, UN body, or even the unanimous votes of the entire Congress can legally infringe the Right of the People, unless the Constitution itself is amended.

The anonymous Marine, along with General McChrystal, need to review their oath, to the US Constitution, and the Constitution which they swore to protect.  It supercedes the whims of Congress, Presidents, Governors, Mayors, Politicians, and Pundits of the MSM, particularly those non-Citizens.

Piers Morgan, who is a journalist, a profession that is supposed to report the facts, not to advocate policy, is not an American, and has a passport for a place that has already banned firearms.  If he wants to live in a place with the soaring violent crimes of a gun-free country, he can move home.  If he wants to advocate for something, it should be for the arrest of his fellow journalist David Gregory to be arrested for breaking current gun laws in that gun-free mecca of violence and hot air, Washington DC.

Piers states (on CBS) that his brother is an officer in the British Army and has served in Afghanistan.  That does not mean he "understands," as he claims, what a Warrior sacrifices.  That means his brother does, not him.  Piers states that he doesn't want his child growing up in a country with assault weapons, which are almost "M4 machine guns," further demonstrating his ignorance of weapons.  (M4 carbines are NOT machine guns and the only way that AR-15's are "assault rifles" is by declaration of politicians and parroting of journalists.)  The automatic firing M4 is an assault rifle, as is an automatic version of the AK-47.  Civilian semi-automatic weapons are NOT.

However, given the updated information above, Piers is probably not very welcome in the Island Nation.  I doubt visits to his brother's house are welcomed either.  Given his lack of integrity, even by journalist standards, he fits right in at CNN, who must have known of the pictures published by Piers. The Piers Morgan resume ain't so shiny either.

Piers has a place to go, home.  It already meets his criteria.  As a subject of the British Empire, he doesn't have a dog in this debate.  We broke our chains of the monarchy 237 years ago, and restated Our Independence, and the Independent Rights of Our Citizens in 1812, when they attempted to enslave Our Sailors.  In both wars, we were outgunned and outmanned, by a Empirical force that was better trained and equipped, but let not the memory of Andrew Jackson and Tennesseans at New Orleans fade too quickly.  That battle was fought with the best firearms a civilian could buy, and more Volunteers than Jackson could pay, but a far smaller force than the Empire sent.

No where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention what a Citizen "needs" or "hunting purposes."  What it explicitly states is "shall not be infringed."

Related articles

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

Will Obama Use An Executive Order To Enact Gun Control?

Extraordinairy Resilience

Former Marine Tears Down Piers Morgan's Anti-Second Amendment Arguments

Wisdom From Charlie Daniels

Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment?

Who Authorizes War? Constitutionally? UN or Congress?

The Bill of Rights, with Your Host, Piers Morgan!

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.

Rating US Universities for Military Veterans

Paul Szoldra, of the satirical military news site, The Duffel Blog (highly recommended), has started a petition for the US News & World Report to include an index of the Best Rated Universities for Military Veterans.  He also maintains the site: College Veteran.com, which is serious and attempts to provide information to Veterans striking out on the same path he has taken: Higher Education.

There is certainly a need for such a study and a ranking.  As Paul notes, there are many less than savory organizations out there that are just after the money that comes with enrollment in College by Military Veterans.  There are "non-profits" and for-profit businesses that get paid by the US government to provide information to Veterans.  And frankly the needs of the Veterans are not always their primary concern.

The "Post-9/11 GI Bill" complicates that matter, because unlike the "New Montgomery GI Bill," there is a highly complicated formula for how much is paid, and how to get paid, not to mention, who can be given the benefits and when, if the Soldier decides not to use them himself.  Additionally, some Veterans have already paid into and earned the Montgomery GI Bill, and have to decide whether to use that fund first, or to convert to the Post 9/11 GI Bill and forever fore go the other college money.

This is an issue that is far too big for one person to tackle alone, and too important to be entrusted to those with a financial or political agenda.  While I would be more comfortable with a Veterans initiated polling system, the size of such an endeavor would be enormous.  Hence, the recommendation that Paul makes is the best solution that is currently feasible.  Still, if there is a person that could put together a system that would elicit a College Veteran based system, Paul does seem to be that guy.

If you have experience, with a particular College or University, and are a Veteran, please feel free to tell us about it in comments below.  In particular, please elaborate on what went well or bad in relation to Veteran Relations, including processing of GI Bill benefits and other financial aid, as well as other Veteran Related interactions with the Staff, Faculty, and fellow Students.  Please use a valid email address, as I may ask some follow-up questions.  Your email address will not be published (assuming you don't post it inside the body of your comment or in the name block) and won't be shared without YOUR permission.  And I won't add you to any lists or repeatedly email you.

At the very least your comments may assist a fellow Veteran in making an educational decision, though I do recommend that all persons reading the comments to continue their due diligence and not rely on those comments alone.

Paying The Government to Retire from the Military

There has been a feeling of betrayal in Troops and Veterans over the Obama Administration plan to charge Military Retirees for Health Care.  General Dempsey says he can afford it, though in other speeches he has told Army leaders that they should look out for their Troops and not just themselves.  General Dempsey can afford to pay a few thousand back to the government, because his retirement check will be more than his Active Duty check, about 20x more than he would pay back above his Active Duty check more.

I took a look at an average National Guard/Reserve Soldier's retirement instead.  I made him up, so he's neither extraordinary, nor lazy.  He joined the Guard when he was 18, and it was 1992.  He served his 1 weekend a month and his two weeks a year, but he didn't chase extra Active Duty assignments.  He served a year each in Iraq and a year in Afghanistan, when his unit was mobilized.  Over 20 years, he was promoted to Sergeant First Class, an E7.  In 2012, he'll retire, but he won't get a retirement check until he's 60, in 2034.  Based on my calculations, his check will be $644.83 a month when he turns 60, but he'll enroll in Tricare Prime in 2012, because he doesn't want to be fined under ObamaCare.

He'll "break even" in 2051, when he's 77 years old.  He'll have paid the government $129,137.21 for the joy of having served, before he gets there, if he gets there.

Taxing The Buffett Farmers, Veterans, & Elderly

Who are those miscreants not paying their fair share?  YOU!  As Obama goes on his campaign to institute the "Buffett Tax," one has to look back to his original proposal to see what he wants to actually tax.  A look at the "White House" site only reveals the current political campaign, without the actual proposal.  It's still there, but buried under numerous campaign messages from 2011 and 2012.  He has put parts of it in the 2013 DoD budget proposal and 2013 Government budget proposal, but that only demonstrates his focus on getting the other taxes through.

It isn't just a tax bill.  It's also a spending bill.  And a shell game.  Hidden amidst flowery words, it recognizes the law of diminishing returns, i.e., even the part that "taxes the rich," the returns diminish quickly.  Who wouldn't want to tax the rich, after all?  You'd be surprised to learn that the Nation's Elderly, Military Retirees, and Farmers are the "Buffett Rich."

The Elderly?  Yep, the Obama Administration proposes taxing them for the medications and health care.  He doesn't call this a "tax."  He calls it a "savings," because they survived to 65, paying into Social Security and Medicare, their entire lives, and now they're sponging off the system that taxed them.  He has determined that by increasing their costs for Part B Medicare (as well as Part C & D), they can pay their "fair share" of the Buffett tax.  Eventually, you too will qualify for this tax, no matter who you are.

The Great White Fathers Speak with Forked Tongue

The politicization of our Generals is increasingly apparent, and disheartening.

It is understood, and accepted by some, though completely abhorrent, that Politicians lie, and that they tell people what they want to hear.  In recent years, I've noted and pointed out an increasing trend of politicians contradicting themselves in the same speech.  I've also pointed out that positions such as the Secretary of Defense, are political appointees of a politician, and not just neutral "Defense Department officials," as often implied by MSM articles.

The Joint Chief of Staff, General Dempsey, is currently using his podium to call for the maintenance of an apolitical military, while also using it to endorse calls to cut the Military.  His predecessor demonstrated a similar propensity to step out of the realm of objective reporting of the facts under his control, to endorsement of Administration policies.  It is unsursprising to me to see the Secretary of Defense parrot the Administration, to endorse his policies, but when Our Generals step into the realm of partisan politics, and into the deceit of politics, Our Nation, has lost a key component in maintaining a politically independent military.

Many will point out that Officers, and particularly Generals, have always needed to be political, but there is a difference between being "political," and being partisan.  Officers have been political in the sense that they campaigned with other officers, networked, and said the things they needed to say, to other officers, and to politicians, to get the next position, and to get the next promotion.  But officers were very careful to avoid open discussion of partisan political positions.  It was their responsibility to implement the policies and regulations of the politicians, not to endorse the policies or campaign for the proposed policies, or against those policies.  It was their responsibility to report the facts, not to cross over into unsupported  opinion.

American Marine Faces Execution in Iran

On the 18th of December 2011, Iranian TV announced that they had captured an "American Spy" and broadcast his "confession."  Amir Mirzaei Hekmati had been illegally held since at least September 2011, and subjected to interrogations for at least 3 months.  An Iranian Islamist Court sentenced him to death on 9 January 2012, after a half day show trial.

His "crime?" "Fighting against Allah."  In Iran, that is a "crime" punishable by death.  The "evidence?"  His confession that he was a US Marine who had deployed to Iraq & Afghanistan.

Picture courtesy of www.FreeAmir.org

But what was Amir's real purpose in being in Iran?  He was there to visit his grandmother.  His parents had emigrated to the United States before he was born.  Amir is an American, born in Flagstaff, Arizona.  When he applied for his travel visa, he stated his background.  If he were a "spy," he wouldn't have said he was a former Marine.  He would have said he was a clerk at Best Buy or 7-11, or a college student, but he wouldn't have carried a US Military ID, if he had thought there was a need to hide it, i.e. if he were working for an Intelligence Agency of an adverserial government.

America, When Will You Stand Up for Veterans?

Military Retirees, under 65, probably have another job that can pay their Health Insurance Costs.  We need to convince them to use that Insurance plan instead of the one they earned by 20+ years in the Military.  Obama Administration. (paraphrased, they would never say it that clearly.)

This is what the Administration calls "not breaking faith" with Our Troops and Veterans.  I had a rather heated discussion about this with a civilian friend, who happens to support Obama.  She felt that the disgust I voiced with the Administration, and with those that continue to justify his slashes makes Veterans and Troops appear to be just a whiny special interest group.  She didn't understand how I could confuse her Support of the Troops, with annoyance that she attempted to justify the Administration's calls for culling the force.  And she typed the same lines the Obama Campaign has used to justify the cuts.  The Proposals include:

Increasing and adding new enrollment fees for retirees (for Tricare)
Establishing a new enrollment fee for the TRICARE-­‐for-­‐Life program
Implementing additional increases in pharmacy co-­‐pays
Obama proposals in January 2012, in the DoD "Defense Budget Priorities" previously proposed in the Obama Budget Proposal in September 2011 which was marketed as raising taxes on "the rich" while "raising revenue" to a greater extent from Military Retirees & Veterans.

So, how do I express myself better?  How do I better explain why it is wrong for the American Government to break its contract with the Veterans that have protected this Nation?  Why is it morally and legally wrong to charge Military Retirees for Health Care?  Why is it the responsibility of the American People to stop this?  Who can do that and How?

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.

Military Cuts are 'strategic guidance'???

The BHO administration is at it again: renaming their actions, and world events, to further their own political agenda. Their latest efforts to deflect and defuse miltary analysts and commenters/critics' responses to their latest round of slashing of the US Military budgets - while their Troops are at war, and while their Veterans are returning from those wars - is to call their knife wielding abomination "strategic guidance."

Strategic guidance???? This fits the BHO MO perfectly, and is line with such things as his renaming the Global War on Terror some benign mumbo jumbo, which nobody I know bought into.

Since BHO went before the cameras for a press conference the other day at the Pentagon - something no other president in US history has done - flanked by 'supporting' Military personnel, I have watched as the media has dutifully repeated his words, and joined the chorus of calling these dangerous cuts something they are not! The DoD is working overtime to convince the public that there is "nothing to see (or worry about) here. Move along now!" but make no mistake. What BHO is set to have our Defense Dept do, has nothing to do with US National Defense needs, and is partisan, all politics, all the time. If that were not the case, why does he so often preface his announcements of Military issues with "I kept my promise'? Don't believe me? Do your own research. It wouldn't take you long to prove my point. Courtesy of the internet, there are lots of videos of his "I kept my promise.'...

Today from the DoD, as article as another Military leader is interviewed about the US 'strategic guidance':

Official: Strategic Guidance Recognizes U.S. NATO Commitments

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 2012 – As the United States implements new strategic guidance that increases its focus on Asia and the Pacific, it also needs to pursue “smart defense initiatives” as it continues to honor its NATO commitments, a senior defense official said today.

Budget constraints will demand new efficiencies and new approaches to collective defense, Julianne Smith, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO policy, told reporters at the Foreign Press Center here.

Smith joined Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Phillip Gordon in explaining how the new strategic guidance will impact defense in the European theater.

“The trans-Atlantic relationship remains an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world,” Gordon said, with Europe remaining the United States’ principal partner in promoting global and economic security.

“And so the strategy outlined last week reaffirms our commitment to European security,” he said, and continued commitment to the so-called Article 5 responsibility to aid any NATO ally in the event of an attack....

More here, if you must. "...reaffirms our commitment to [... ]security...' Really? As I said to a Veteran the other day, 'can these politicans be serious'? Same for some of the Military bigwigs I have seen and heard, as the Mouth In Chief shares oh so sincerely with the msm his vision of America's future. I understand very well that our Military leaders have to be seen to being in step with the MIC if they want to keep their jobs, but the politicians? Even those of us non-Military types, and with even one brain cell with which to read, know that now is not the time to be slashing Military or Defense budgets to the extent that BHO is planning. No.

War On Terror News can always be relied on to give the straight goods:

01/07/2012

The Latest Obama Purges of the Military

 

I am not a fan of politicians, but less so when they tell us how grateful we should be that they're about to put the big green weanie up our rears, without an ounce of lube. What does this statement mean?

"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve" President Obama, 6 JAN 2012, as he announced new massive cuts to the military.

I've been hearing that line for months now, even as the Administration has ordered 49,000 US Soldiers into the unemployment lines, after tossing 10,000-100,000 Northrop-Grumman employees on the street who were building the F-22, and 20,000 National Guard Soldiers out of the service. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was the first I heard utter the phrase, even as he attempted to blame Congress for the cuts he had already requested, and ahead of the most recent cuts he announced. This came after cuts of $550 Billion by the same Administration. So when I hear this Administration tell me that they will "keep the faith" with Troops and Veterans, I know there's something bad coming down the pike.

The latest round brings us to $1.1+ Trillion in cuts to the Military, at the same time the Administration increased the Federal Debt to $15.3 Trillion. Yes, every part of government except the DoD and Veterans Administration budgets have ballooned. DoD budgets have not only been cut but misused. ...

[...]

The Obama Administration tells us that he plans to increase commitments in the Pacific, while at the same time cutting the number of Troops & Equipment available for these new commitments. It says we're going to rely on alliances for our security, and specifically mentions NATO, which has also cut its defenses significantly in the last decades, to the point that during the Libyan War, the US had to give them munitions to fight the "non-war" that Obama never consulted Congress for, though it was our munitions being launched from our ships and airplanes destroying Libyan buildings and TV stations, because they were "supporting the regime" in a dangerous manner...

 

GO read the rest of this here.

Just in case that wasn't clear enough for anyone, WOTN revisits the issue of slashing Defense budgets - oooops, I mean 'strategic guidance' of course! - in this:

01/07/2012

As Politicians Abandon Our Troops & National Security

In 2008, candidate Obama told us he would make Afghanistan his top priority. In 2009, he told us he would listen to the Generals, that he would "fully support our Troops." In 2010, he told us the situation on the ground would shape his decisions on how many Troops to authorize the Generals to have to fight the enemy. In 2011, he told us he would "keep faith" with the Troops who have fought our Wars.

"We will back you up to the hilt, because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done." President Obama 10/26/2009, Florida

The situation in Afghanistan did NOT dictate the reduction of forces there. Not only did he not send the Troops General McChrystal, and General McKiernan before him, requested, but he announced the "drawdown" when he announced the half-stepping measures. As a result, General McChrystal & General Petraeus had only enough Troops to surge into Helmand and Kandahar, keeping only enough Troops in Paktika, Paktia, Jalalabad, and Khowst, to hope it wouldn't get worse.

General Allen has promised to use whatever resources the politicians allow him to fight for Victory. That means he is now pushing into the Eastern Provinces, while attempting to hold on to the Victories in the South. The War in Afghanistan has become its own version of the 1+1 policy of the Clinton Administration. That policy decision was also budget driven to decrease the size of the military to a point that the Nation would "be able to win one war, while holding another to a stalemate," until forces were available from the first war. General McChrystal, General Petraeus, & General Allen have been forced by politicians to fight the War in Afghanistan the same way, trying to win in one region of the country, while holding others to a stalemate.

And if this Nation, combined with our NATO allies, cannot win the War in Afghanistan alone, then we must abandon the myth that we could hold a second war to a stalemate long enough to win the first War in Afghanistan. And that is occuring before his cuts. The new policy can't be considered a 1+1 policy, but a +1 Defense posture. The Administration hopes that the military can fight to a stalemate long enough for someone to "end the war."...

 

GO read it here

WOTN also has video proof of BHO the candidate, who was singing a very different tune then as he aspired to the highest office in the land. Go! To some of us, it doesn't matter what words BHO or his minions spout. We know it is all about politics, and money. We know that slashing things like Military budgets speaks to those supporters to whom candidate Obama promised 'hope and change.'...We also know - because we pay attention - that yes, all budgets need to be cut in these austere times, as deficits and debtloads rise globally, a trillion here, another trillion there. We get that, but cutting Defence budgets to the point of insanity in such dangerous times, even if the 'Taleban is not our enemy'? There is NO 'splaining that away as a smart move.

In case you think that only Americans are being subjected to this insanity of ensuring National INsecurity, you should know that Canada has also been going full steam ahead with slashing critical budgets. Since Prime Minister Harper finally got his long-sought majority government this last election, the knives have been out as all federal departments were told to cut their budgets by 5% over a 3 year period..This week comes word that some of those departments have now been told to cut their budgets by 10% over a one year timeframe. Care to hazard a guess as to which departments have been given these 10% goals? I'll tell you: Defence, CSIS - the department whose mandate is supposedly Canada's Security - AND Foreign Affairs. Read more on this over at the CBC, where these details could be lost in a story whose main focus is the unions bellyaching about job loss. These cuts all the while the government is going to give a $5million private contract for an assessment of global threats! Hello? And yes, while Canadian Veterans are having to fight their government when they return from the sandbox, for benefits that they have earned in service to their country. THAT story another day. Again, though, politicians both side of the border (and in Britain, I might add) slashing Military and Defence budgets with apparently very little regard for a) their side of the contracts they made with our Troops and Veterans, not to mention our allies, and b) at a time when the threats are gaining momentum worldwide, slashing the very people trained to counteract such threats.

So if we believe that it is ALL about the money, and I do, (and BHO's constant election campaign promises, of course) it seems to me that there are many other places that budgets in America could be slashed, without jeopardising the US national security. Wouldn't you know it, that with very little internet searching (and a little help from my friends....) I found some funding projects, that should be cut to save the sadsack US economy that would have zero effect on national security.

Daily Caller has this list of what they call (and I have to agree) Top Ten Stupidest Government Spending items:

By Taylor Bigler - The Daily Caller 12/20/2011

As the fight over how to fix America’s overspending habit ended in a stalemate this year, the federal government spent billions of dollars in 2011 on some unusual projects. And according to a new report from Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, $6.5 billion of it was wasted.

The list includes more than $100,000 on a video game “preservation” center, $120 million in salaries to dead employees and $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere — all in a year when the federal deficit rose by nearly $2 trillion.

Coburn’s “Wastebook 2011″ report lists 100 of the most egregious spending boondoggles.

Here are the top 10 most ridiculous things the federal government paid for this year:

10. $764,825 for a study on how college students use cell phones and social media

The National Science Foundation awarded the University of Notre Dame this grant to study the mobile and social media habits of college freshmen. We can tell you exactly how college freshmen use mobile phones and social media: for 3 a.m. texts and phone calls to that girl in American History. We could have saved the government a lot of money. Just ask us.

9. $136,555 for teachers to retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England

This grant, awarded to teachers from Kent State and Eastern Illinois Universities, allowed Middle English lit fanatics to take the trip outlined in Canterbury Tales. We’re betting £10 that the tour guides just make up half of the landmarks.

8. $55,660 on butter packaging

Kriemhild Dairy Farms received this chunk of change to package their grass-fed cow butter. The funding isn’t the only thing that’s too big: The butter itself is 85 percent fat.

7. $606,000 for a study about online dating

Columbia University researchers received over a half-million dollars to study online dating. Maybe the Ivy League nerds who conducted this study should put down the lab coats and go to a bar — or at least the library....

 

Yes, there is more here. Really? Yes, really. Almost defies belief, doesn't it? Just those items taken off the gravy train would save a bundle, and their demise would leave more dollars free for the National Defense budget. One of my favourites from that list? $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail...No, you can't make this stuff up!

These may be a Top Ten, but there is no shortage of 'special' projects that Americans' tax dollars pay for, that apparently the feds deem so important that they would rather cut Military and Defense budgets than do away with such things as the mating habits for quails.

While reading for this column, I learned that earmarking as we know it, in its present form, was not always a seemingly obligatory sneaky way to add ridiculous pet projects onto important bills, and hope that nobody notices. Over at SwineList in a column called: Time to End Earmarks Once and For all, I found this bit of history:

[...] Even as federal power vastly expanded during the twentieth century, Congress did not earmark extensively until the 1980s. Instead, Congress would fund general grant programs and let federal and state agencies select individual recipients through a competitive process or formula. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees named specific projects only when they had been vetted and approved by authorizing committees. Members of Congress with local concerns would lobby the president and federal agencies for consideration. The process was aimed at preventing abuse and allocating resources on the basis of merit and need.

From 1991 until the enactment of the moratorium for the 112th Congress, earmarks steadily increased in frequency and size. A 2007 report from the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Inspector General found that between 1996 and 2005, DOT earmarks increased in number by 1,150 percent and in value by 314 percent. As vocal critics such as Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) have noted, earmarks have greased the skids for runaway spending and bad policy for decades. Politically powerful politicians in Washington began using earmarks as a currency to buy votes on bills that members would not otherwise vote for. The secrecy involved in this process invited the use of earmarks to fund wasteful projects, such as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” that was included in the 2005 transportation bill.

Taxpayers were hopeful that this practice would come to an end with the passage of the earmark moratorium for the 112th Congress. Unfortunately, that hope was misplaced. Analysis of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Citizens Against Government Waste identified 111 earmarks – 59 of which matched exact language from previous earmarks. A December 12, 2011 report produced by Sen. McCaskill’s office identified 115 earmarks worth $834 million in the NDAA. Twenty Republican freshmen who campaigned against earmarks were among the requesters....

Imagine that! This is a must read here for very enlightening facts on the practice of earmarking. The final paragraph on it says what needs to be done, but remains pessimistic that there is any political will to actually do something about the absurd projects being funded while serious matters - oh, like National Defense and the health of our Veterans - go on the Obama chopping block.


As referenced above, Senator Tom Coburn keeps track of these things. In his December 2010 edition of WasteBook: A Guide to Some of the Most Wasteful and Low Priority Govenment Spending of 2011, he has this:

Dear Taxpayer,

Robot dragons, video games, Christmas trees, snow cone machines, and chocolate.

This is not a Christmas wish list.

These are just some of the ways the federal government spent your tax dollars this year.

Over the past 12 months, Washington politicians
argued, debated and lamented about how to reign
in the federal government‘s out of control spending.
All the while, Washington was on a shopping
binge, spending money we do not have on things
we do not need, like the $6.9 billion worth of
examples provided in this report. The result:
Instead of cutting wasteful spending, nearly $2.5
billion was added each day in 2011 to our national
debt, which now exceeds $15 trillion....

You may well ask - or at least you should be asking - what sort of projects does your government see fit to fund, all the while making sure that the Military has to argue for every dime they get? Take a look:

1) Politicians Partying on the Taxpayer Dime – (Presidential Election
Campaign Fund) $35.38 Million

2) Mangled Mango Effort Could Hurt Farmers It Meant to Help –
(Pakistan) $30 Million

In 2009, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) undertook a four-year, $90 million effort to spur hiring and sales among Pakistani businesses. Two years later, the USAID Inspector General (USAID OIG) found ―no measurable increases in sales and employment....

 

You think I'm kidding? There is more:

 

5) Paying for Pancakes – (D.C) $765,828
Almost $800,000 of federal taxpayer funds went to subsidize ―pancakes for yuppies in the nation‘s capital. [That was paid to IHOP, and you really have to go read to find out why.

One of my personal favourites (but no surprise to me) is this one:

7) Dead Federal Employees Continue to Get Benefits Checks – (U.S. Office of Personnel Management) $120 Million

The federal government sent an average of $120 million in retirement and disability payments to deceased former federal employees every year for at least the past five years.

In a September 2011 report, the Inspector General (IG) for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management found that ―the amount of post-death improper payments is consistently $100-$150 million annually, totaling over $601 million in the last five years.

In one example the IG found, an annuitant‘s son cashed his dead father‘s checks for 37 years. The son‘s scheme, which cost taxpayers more than $500,000, was discovered in 2008, when he himself died. ―The improper payment was not recovered, the IG reported...

I am sure that most of my readers already know that the US pays millions in aid to China, and that is included in this list. To read the details is almost jawdropping. Really.


How about almost half a million dollars to this project?:

11) Drug-Themed “Mellow Mushroom” Pizza Restaurant – (TX) $484,000

Our nation currently faces many challenges; a shortage of beer and pizza, however, is rarely cited as one of them. Still, a private developer received nearly half a million dollars in federal funds to build Mellow Mushroom Pizza Bakers, a nationwide pizza chain, in Arlington, Texas.

Okay, I have to ask, WTH are the feds smoking to think that this kind of funding is acceptable? Hello?

Another gem:

19) Children, Prisoners, and Others Who Don’t Own Homes Awarded
Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credits (Internal Revenue
Service) – $1 Billion

As much as $1 billion or more in tax credits for energy efficient residential improvements109 are being claimed by individuals with no record of owning a home, including prisoners and underage children.

 

How about funding for a Magic Museum, or over $500,000 to make a documentary about, and I quote, How Rock and Roll Contributed to the Collapse of the Soviet Union. That's number 16 on the list. Oh the name of this movie? Rockin' the Kremlin. These projects are included in a 98 page pdf document, and the other examples are equally outrageous, unless of course you think that Rockin' the Kremlin, or TVs for rural Vietnamese villagers are more important than, let's say, funding the Troops, or ensuring the VA is adequately funded so it can function at optimal levels for our returning Wounded Warriors, for just one example.

These items listed here are just the tip of a very big iceberg, and I haven't even gone into to all the assinine 'green' projects that have been funded to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars, before they go on to fail miserably. Every American should be screaming from the rooftops, and demanding accountability from every politician who snuffles up to what they see as a bottomless public trough. For the complete document, go here.


If that list is not enough, try here for another list of even more areas that could be cut to help the US money problems. That is Citizens Against Government Waste. Read these sites, bookmark them, start getting really angry, America.

Nobody denies that in these times that belt tightening is a must, on all levels of government. However, it seems to me that if BHO can stand at the Pentagon and say the Military and Defense budgets must be so drastically cut, he should first take a look at what America should be cutting, and yes, Americans should be demanding such a process be implemented before one more Military-designated dime, one more Troop, is chopped from the budget.

It is more than time for every American to start demanding their politicians get serious about solving the budgetary issues, and cut the budget to the bone, on items that do not directly impact the safety and security of ALL Americans - even those who don't eat pancakes. As this very short glimpse here shows, to continue funding absurd projects is NOT the way to address the bottom line.

Wake UP, America.

The Latest Obama Purges of the Military

I am not a fan of politicians, but less so when they tell us how grateful we should be that they're about to put the big green weanie up our rears, without an ounce of lube.  What does this statement mean?

"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve" President Obama, 6 JAN 2012, as he announced new massive cuts to the military.

I've been hearing that line for months now, even as the Administration has ordered 49,000 US Soldiers into the unemployment lines, after tossing 10,000-100,000 Northrop-Grumman employees on the street who were building the F-22, and 20,000 National Guard Soldiers out of the service.  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was the first I heard utter the phrase, even as he attempted to blame Congress for the cuts he had already requested, and ahead of the most recent cuts he announced.  This came after cuts of $550 Billion by the same Administration.  So when I hear this Administration tell me that they will "keep the faith" with Troops and Veterans, I know there's something bad coming down the pike.

The latest round brings us to $1.1+ Trillion in cuts to the Military, at the same time the Administration increased the Federal Debt to $15.3 Trillion.  Yes, every part of government except the DoD and Veterans Administration budgets have ballooned.  DoD budgets have not only been cut but misused. 

Last Minute Legislation & Kicking the Can Down the Road

Have you noticed how many times in the last few yearsthe politicians of Washington waited to the last minute to vote on key legislation barely averting a government shutdown?  The tactic of take it or leave it brinkmanship is not new, but I don't recall it being used so often as it has been in recent years.  The 2011 budget, which should have been passed by Sep 30, 2010, was kicked down the road by weeks at a time for all of 2011.  The Debt Ceiling was lifted at the very last minute.  In each of these cases, the vote offered no time for negotiations.  The choice was to support all the earmarks, ie. pork, or be responsible for shutting down the government.

The 2012 Budget, which should have been passed no later than Sep 30, 2011 is currently being held up because the House is pushing for a full year extension of a Social Security Tax cut, as the POTUS said he wanted, until the House said they would push for it, and the Senate didn't.  Now, the Senate has decided they won't even work on a compromise until the House approves what they've voted down.  The bully tactics of the Senate Millionaires club are pretty bold, based primarily in a belief that voters will blame the majority party of the House, rather than the majority party of the Senate.

The most basic, most routine responsibility of Congress is to develop and approve the Annual Budget of the Federal Government.  This isn't some surprise to the members of Congress.  They know they have to do it every year.  They know it is due by 30 September every year.  There is no reason that this shouldn't be worked out well ahead of the deadline.  And there is no legitimate reason for the Budget to include money for researching why Monkeys fling dung or preservation of the history of video games.

Pragmatic Views on Overcoming Insidious Ambivalence Towards Our Troops

So, Assoluta Tranquillita tells us the top words of the year are Pragmatic and Ambivalence.  I immediately wondered how many of the Top Ten I could work into a single article.  I expect, with more dedication, I could have used them all, but I immediately decided to avoid some of them.

Even the least interested politicians have noted the great disconnect between Our Troops and Our Citizens.  Unfortunately, the most interested of the vitriolic politicians want to re-connect Troops and Citizens by force, in order to undermine popular support for the Mission of Our Troops, i.e. they wanted to re-institute the draft, to force the unwilling to fight for Freedom.  The former Representative Charles Rangel-NY, was the primary force behind the move, before he left Congress amidst allegations of misconduct.  Mr. Rangel was a Veteran himself, but his belief was that if "the rich" sent their sons to War, alongside the minorities, both would push for an end to the Wars.

The slogan of ethnic and impoverished genocide was used early in the anti-War propaganda, but had no legs.  The Military is drawn from across the whole of America, but the fatalities had demonstrated that Caucasian Men bore a disproportionately higher brunt of the fighting.  The diversity of the Infantry was stunted, not due to some arbitrary system, but instead by the choices made by Individuals voluntarily enlisting in the Marines and Army Infantry.  Proportionately, Hispanic Men are also more likely to join the Infantry and bear the brunt of combat.

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:

 

Those Pesky Veterans Are Bankrupting the Nation?

To hear some people talk about it, the Nation can no longer afford to provide Health Care and Disability payments to Our Veterans.  The Obama Administration says they need to pay for their own health care to a greater degree.  We "all" need to "share in the sacrifice."  And others point to 10 years of war and question how we could possibly afford to fulfill Our National promise and obligation to those that volunteered to put their lives in harm's way.  Surely, the number of Veterans in the Nation is rising, and the number that have earned disability checks and care for their injuries is rising as well, right?

No.  As of 2007 (VA's most recent information), there were 3x as many Veterans over 65 than under 40. Of Our Living Veterans, more than 39% are over 64. In fact there were twice as many Veterans over 80 than there are Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.  As of the end of 2006, according to CBS (in 2009), 947,000 Viet Nam Veterans were receiving compensation for their disabilities.  This compares to only 181,000 current conflict Veterans receiving compensation (of at least $1).  "Officially" we've been at war longer, and in two Nations, than we were in Viet Nam, though that doesn't account for the early years of the Viet Nam War.

Why are there so many more Viet Nam Veterans than current conflict Veterans?  A greater burden has been placed on a smaller number of people.  In Viet Nam, a very high percentage of Veterans did one deployment and one term of enlistment.  In today's conflicts, a very high percentage of Troops have served multiple tours.  And we have fewer Troops deployed.

Not Paying Their Fair Share! Troops & Veterans!?!

Well, the POTUS has declared that he has a plan to reduce the deficit by $1Trillion to $4 Trillion over the next 10 years, depending on what part of his marketing you're reading.  He has said that it's time for all of us to pay our "fair share," and pointed to the words of one of his biggest contributors: Warren Buffett.  Buffett is an astute investor who was able to put together a few million in campaign donations for Obama (and for Hillary) in 2008, ensuring they backed TARP which netted Buffett a few billion more in net worth.

Buffett has campaigned for higher taxes on the rich, for as long as he's been an Obama supporter.  To hear the spin, Buffett is paying less in taxes than his secretary, but Buffett doesn't say that being rich, he doesn't need (and likely doesn't take much of) an income.  He doesn't say how much he pays his secretary, but evidently, this translates into needing to raise taxes on those that make $250k/year, as opposed to the tens of billions that Buffett has in wealth.  At any rate, the reported increase in taxes on the small segment of America would supposedly increase tax revenue by $35 Billion, less than the worth of Warren Buffett, and a small part of the total claimed deficit reduction.  At best, it's a token (<1% to 3.5% of the claimed savings) and a slogan, to politicians, but a helluva cut in takehome pay for the people that employee others.

So, who are these miscreants that aren't paying their fair share?  The ones that will pay to balance the budget deficit?  Well, Military Retirees are evidently a big part of those not paying their fair share.  While the POTUS and his SecDef talk out of both sides of their mouths, the POTUS plans to slash military retirement pay and benefits.  Evidently, Twenty years of risking life and limb, of sacrificing comfort, and time with family, is insufficient to earn a full retirement.  He wants an "independent" commission to rubber stamp his idea of cutting up to 44 years of retirement pay($21 Billion).  And he wants those that do retire to pay for it themselves, with a 401k plan, instead of a retirement plan.

And those health benefits, earned by wounds, injuries, and constantly beating up their bodies?  To get those, the military retirees should pay $200 more in the first year (and increasing every year) to get those treated.  That's $7 Billion more Obama sees in new taxes, er, "savings."  He also wants to increase, again, the amount Combat Veterans pay for their prescriptions to get another $20.6 Billion out of our Veterans.  It seems our Veterans will pay more than the "evil" rich people that sign our checks.

And the $500 Billion he's already asked to be cut from the Department of Defense?  Oh, that's only part of what he thinks should be cut.  He wants to cut another $260 Billion cut and claims another $1 Trillion will be saved by retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan.  Nevermind that he's already planned to retreat from both, and already claimed those savings from doing so.  Nevermind that we're talking about a 10 year plan in a city where only the budget for next year is sometimes approved.

He also wants to cut Medicare ($248 Billion) and Medicaid (and TriCare for Troops and Veterans).  These are likely as much smoke and mirrors as the rest, but he claims his plan will cut $320 Billion over 10 years, beginning in 2017, when someone else would take the blame, if it ever got passed by the 2017 Congress, and it won't.  Oh, yeah, he'll veto it, if he doesn't get to tax the rich, but the 2017 budget won't be passed until at least 2016, so this isn't going to happen.

So, evidently, the biggest portion of people that Obama thinks are not paying their fair share are the Troops, Veterans, the Elderly, Farmers($2Billion), and the poor.  Those are the people from whom he expects to extract 96+% of his budget savings ($965 Billion to $3.65 Trillion), not those "evil" rich people like Warren Buffett and the guy that signs your paycheck($35 Billion).

And, yeah, a portion of that money he's claiming is based on his speculation that the economy will grow over the next 10 years, increasing the taxes we all pay.  Supposedly, the way that will happen is that by increasing our debt, we'll get more tax revenue.  We all saw the signs for that in 2009.  He told us then that if we didn't spend twice as much as he wants to charge us now, unemployment would be 8+%.  When he got his party to pass that, unemployment jumped from 7% to 10% and we haven't seen less than 9% since. 

So, when Obama and Panetta, look the Troops in the eyes, and say "We can't break faith"  with those fighting Our "contingency operations," that's called a poker face.  When they say they will fight to preserve the DoD Budget, now that they've already cut it by $500 Billion?  That's a bald-faced lie.

So, per his claims:
$1 Trillion from retreat from Iraq/Afghanistan.
$320 Billion from Medicare/Medicaid ($248 Billion Medicare)
$260 Billion more from the DoD Budget (on top of the other $500 Billion he already cut)
$47.5+ Billion from Military Retirees
$35 Billion from taxing employers (i.e. the "evil" rich)

And with all that, (or the bigger $4Trillion), he still won't have cut as much in 10 years, as he has increased the debt in 3 years. ($5 Trillion) while cutting the DoD by $500 Billion.

The Plan?

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.

Is There a Limit to Human Endurance?

Can a man endure great adversity to infinity?  Does each have a specified limit? Is tolerance to adversity built over time?  Does negative reaction build like a poison in a mental appendix until it must be removed?

I believe it was Dr Grossman who quoted a WWI Study that found that Soldiers could endure approximately 100 days of constant combat before they were combat ineffective.  "Shell-shocked" was the term of the day, but today it is called PTSD, or a variant thereof which recognizes that the extreme stresses of combat change a  person's outlook on the world, as well as their means of dealing with the "real world."  Throw in the most common injury of today's battlefield, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), which was once simply called a "Concussion," and it can be difficult to truly assess what caused wires in the Veteran's mind to become crossed, whether the mental burden of imminent death, or the physical injury of jarring the brain.  The symptoms are too intertwined, as well as is the event, to scientifically assess.

Today's battlefield is as different from WWI as WWI was from Revolutionary War battles.  It is different from WWII and from Viet Nam.  Today's Warrior is also  different.  In early wars, a Soldier knew he was on the battlefield or in the rear.  In Centuries past, a Soldier might fight before a gallery of historians, family, and other onlookers.  In WWI, they might await the next suicidal charge ordered by their commander, or the enemy's commander, for a few yards of ground.  But Soldiers weren't given a mid tour break to visit their family, and they weren't shipped home after a year.  They fought until the war was over.

On Today's battlefield there are no front lines, though there are large FOB's, with their own stressors.  The first modern case of what could be called PTSD, I saw, was of a Soldier who never left the FOB and was not ever in real danger.  He had simply put up with too much BS for too long, and cracked.  The members of the unit that were out running and gunning came out of the tour, ready for a break and a return to the battlefield.

For those of us that were there in the early days, we can appreciate the amenities now available, such as CHU's (tin sheds to live in), a Burger King on the FOB, a hot shower, and a porcelin toilet, while still realizing the spartan nature of the lifestyle, foisted upon those willing to defend Freedom.  A tin shed beats a tent flapping in a hot sandstorm, but it's far from the luxuries of a barracks room, or a small apartment.  And a tent is better than sleeping in a rain soaked trench.

A Soldier will always romaticize that some of the stupidity will go away when they finally get into the combat zone, where people should be less concerned about powerpoints and the freshness of a shave, than a full combat load of ammunition, and the availability of the right equipment to get the job done.  But when the Sergeant Major of the Army takes a special trip to Iraq to brief the Troops on how the repeal of DADT will affect them, it demonstrates the mood of the leadership, as to what is most important to them.  When the post Command Sergeant Major demonstrates more concern for the wearing of a reflective belt than the operational capacity of the Soldier's weapon, it tells the Troops that the focus isn't on combat ability, so much as ensuring a risk averse climate.

And when these Troops, either combat or combat support, return to the "real world," they will be changed.  They may avoid long lines, out of a lack of tolerance for standing around for something they don't have to.  They may avoid crowds, as something they've already experienced too much of.  They may value their alone time more, as something they've had too little of.  They may have little tolerance for a slow, inefficient, apathetic clerk, as something they no longer have to put up with.  And at the same time, may let an insult roll off their back, as pointless, inconsequential, and unactionable.

A Veteran may appear to be emotionless, but often this is the honed ability to control emotion.  Control.  A Soldier learns to control everything that is in his control, and often to accept all that is out of his control.  Worrying over things one is unable to change is unproductive, frustrating, and can lead to an inability to control that which they can influence.  But give a Veteran a responsibility, and the authority to influence the results, and the task will be performed to perfection, with a tad bit of self-chastisement for not achieving more.

The Human Being is a resilient creature.  Our WWI and WWII Veterans went on to lives of great success in the Civilian World.  Our Viet Nam Veterans succeeded greatly, after a longer period of re-adjustment, and provide a path to excellence.  Our current generation of combat Veterans are fighting new battles at home as they did abroad.  They didn't fight the Forgotten War, as did Our Korean War Veterans, but neither have their Viet Nam era Brothers allowed them to be embattled by Our Own Citizens  when they return.  They don't get parades as did Our WWII era Brothers, but they aren't spit on as were Our Viet Nam era Brothers.

Perhaps, this will be remembered as the Ignored Wars, rather than the Forgotten War.  To win would take decades, and Americans just can't seem to take that much time out of their trips to the mall to buy the latest Chinese products, while bemoaning the unemployment rate.  Too many citizens would prefer to spend tax dollars on UAW bailouts and government subsidized electric carts than on the weapons of war and Soldiers to secure our Nation.  Too many would prefer to save money on a foreign car than to spend the money on the car their neighbor built.  Too many would prefer to complain that manufacturing is moving overseas, than to spend the extra money to get a quality product built at home.  Too many would rather have a management or service job than toil at the factory.  Too many would rather complain that Government should do something about the Greedy Corporations, than do something about their own purchasing decisions.  Too many want the easy life, rather than the life of sweat and blood and sacrifice, or even to pay those that are willing to live such a life to secure their easy life in Freedom.  Too many prefer "free" to Freedom.

The Veteran will wonder if it were selfish to leave before one more tour of risk and sacrifice, or a worthless sacrifice to go when the Citizenry couldn't even bother to know what he did.  The Veteran will wonder if his brothers needed him one more time, or if the protected would rather have the money to pay for free cellphones for the projects.  And the Veteran will watch as the Citizenry bicker over what to do with the money "saved" by delaying his retirement check for 30 or 40 years, and increasing his financial obligation for the care of the wounds he endured.

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.

Retired SF Officer, Bill Burgess, Runs for Circuit Court Judge

It has only been a few days since William H Burgess III declared he is running for Circuit Court Judge in Florida for 2012.  To be honest, I don't know much about him or how such campaigns are run.  Such campaigns seem to have less of the partisan venom of other elected officials.  There was one thing that jumped out at me though: He's a former officer in Special Forces.  He has also served in Military Intelligence and the Infantry.  That's not his main qualification for the job, but it's the one that jumped out at me. 

And I asked a friend to verify it.  Turns out he was one of the first to become an SF branched officer.  In earlier times, officers of other branches were simply assigned to Special Forces, and it was considered a career killer.  Those that volunteered for the assignment did so because they believed enough in the mission that they were willing to forego career advancement to be the best. 

Mr Burgess runs a legal blog where he discusses legal issues and he's on the WOTN friends list on Facebook which is how I learned about his bid for judgeship.  His political affilation is Non-Partisan.  (Because of the nature of our Facebook page, I accept nearly all friend requests.  It does not imply I know the person or agree with their positions, but that I'm happy that citizens want to stay informed on the events of the War On Terror.  So, I was playing catch-up on this.) 

For the legal scholars out there, this is one to watch.  For the central Florida residents out there, this is a chance to learn more about one of the candidates for Florida Judgeship.  For the readers that are interested in such things, this may be a way to influence the path of the our courts.  For me, this will likely be a learning experience in judicial campaigns.