Russia is not our friend

Russia is not our friend

Iran is f*cking crazy (they mass murder homosexuals, kill rape victims and amputate you for misdemeanors)

Russia is not our friend

Although WikiLeaks has withheld some possibly dangerous classified info from its site, U.S. journalists are now reporting that WikiLeaks actually posted many documents with potentially dangerous information, most notably names of hundreds of our Afghan friends (even often along with their village names) working covertly with U.S. forces. Sadly, Al Qaeda, Taliban, and insurgent members may now be killing or about to kill many of these covert Afghan friends or their family members. Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently said these disclosures are “very irresponsible and shocking,” and he had no doubt that “their [Afghan allies] lives will be in danger now.”

Along with WikiLeaks, I blame in part the Obama administration for any of this possible bloodshed. What could President Obama have done? Though he was evidently too scared as Commander in Chief to shut down WikiLeaks’s site before the leaks, he could have directly communicated with WikiLeaks to better indicate the seriousness and possible consequences of its leaks. For instance, President Obama could have sent WikiLeaks a copy of Regional Command East’s Media Ground Rules, which U.S. correspondents in Afghanistan have agreed to when they embed with the military to cover military ops. These rules generally prohibit even taking “photos of local nationals employed by the coalition.” To help our Afghan allies, other Media Ground Rules ban release of such info as the following:

• Info on and images of coalition special operations units
• Info on friendly forces’ electronic warfare equipment or procedures
• Friendly forces’ counter-IED [improvised explosive device] activities

To further show the importance of protecting friends, President Obama could have sent WikiLeaks copies of the U.S. government’s or military’s security guidelines for U.S. journalists in past U.S. wars. In wartime, the U.S. government and military have a long history of protecting U.S. allies (as well as the U.S. military, homeland, and civilians) from potentially dangerous press revelations with rules of voluntary censorship. For instance, in World War II the government issued rules asking journalists to avoid reporting Allied military plans and info on secret Allied systems of communication. In the Korean War, rules asked correspondents to not disclose info about and activities of friendly Korean guerillas. The Vietnam War had such rules as a ban on reporting the size of friendly forces involved in operations in progress, and the Persian Gulf War had rules such as one against revealing coalition units’ number of supplies.

Instead of making a big deal about protecting our Afghan friends and classified info in the leaked docs, the Obama administration played the “Telephone Game” with New York Times journalists and WikiLeaks. Hopefully, most of our Afghan friends will evade capture or death.

Hypothermia:  bad. Naked cuddling in a sleeping bag to survive:  priceless. There’s no ‘good’ classification to a heart stopping freeze. Unless it’s a freeze of assets, which is something headed Mr. Rangel’s way.

The soon to be infamous Democratic Congressman from New York is at the center of his very own Ethics Violation. So far the only publicly aired grievance is in regard to a tax deviation for a property he owns in The Dominican Republic. Lame. Now that you have that uninspiring tidbit let’s address the legitimate grievances that concern you as an American citizen.

Creeped out by the Socialism epidemic (good boat to be in, all hands on deck)? The Obamacare bill belongs to Mr. Rangel. Not a huge fan of a draft? The newly introduced draft bill is another evil spawn of good ole Charlie.

41 states have filed lawsuits against The Federal Government in response to HR 3590 (Obamacare) without even getting into the private sector’s response. While the percentage of informed Americans either A) support a potential draft during wartime or B) disregard Rangel’s bill since he has reintroduced it regularly over the past 7 years while personally voting against it after it hit the floor; there are a few current complications you should be made aware of.

Recently The Pentagon issued a warning to Congress in respect to pending deliberations over a temporary military funding bill. While Democrats are getting hormonal over Big O’s threat to veto the bill unless it’s budget proposal expands dramatically from 36 to 86 billion, Republicans are growing more and more impatient as the August recess rapidly approaches. What happens if Congress fails to approve this short term band-aid?

Well, The Pentagon says we’re shit-out-of-luck! Both The Marine Corps and The Army are speeding towards literally stark empty accounts. By August neither of the two will have a penny left. Primary concerns focus  around loud boot-camp esque factoids spouted by decorated experts protesting keeping the service men and women in combat on a voluntary basis. As of yet a legality overview has yet to be agreed upon. If either branch fails to pay its employees will they have the opportunity to cease and desist? Is this how the war will end? Is it even fair to ask them to stay on for free?

However you should be more focused on the possibility that the coincidental serial submission of The Draft Bill is a response or rather a proposed solution to this. Since the bill is only 14 pages long we highly suggest you read it, it has been linked everywhere it was mentioned (that’s what the blue font is for). The language is ambiguous and disconcerting.

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

The bill is non-gender discriminatory and allows you the option of civilian service (although the specifications into the deliberation are unclear). However, civilian service is eerily similar in description to the militia hidden in the folds of Rangel’s other blatant offense against liberty (Obamacare). Firstly, why on earth was Obama granted a civilian militia, and secondly, what was it doing in The Healthcare Reform? And why all this from Mr. Out-of-Iraq-NOW?  I guess we’d have to ask Charlie.

This Administration and its shady attempts to turn the bravery of patriots into the incarceration of slaves is practically treason and you should be very concerned about the implications of forced service, specifically when stationed at home (against your brethren). Is it too idealistic to hope that Rangel’s inquiries will surface some truth to unravel the Socialistic plans of The Obamanation? Or is it firstly just offensive to ‘hope’ during this four year stint in hell?

The Washington Post, after an investigation lasting two years, decided to expose the insanely huge spending and massive size of the intelligence community in a Monday online report entitled “Top Secret America.” Headed by notorious lefties Dana Priest and William Arkin, who normally shouldn’t be given the time of day, this massive list of over 1,900 companies – most of them based in the Eastern US – fingers everything from AT&T to Novell (sorry, Microsoft haters) as employed by the government in some capacity or another. Over a third of them (36%) are large companies with 101-500 employees, and according to a DNI memo 70% of the yearly intelligence budget is spent on contracts for everything from satellites to food service.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, created during the first year of the Kennedy administration, underwent a 225% growth from 2003 onward. In the words of the Post itself:

At least 20 percent of the government organizations that exist to fend off terrorist threats were established or refashioned in the wake of 9/11. Many that existed before the attacks grew to historic proportions as the Bush administration and Congress gave agencies more money than they were capable of responsibly spending.

Or, responsibly remembering what to do with. Agents tasked with assimilating the data couldn’t have been trusted with their lives to remember it all when it was going in one ear and out the other. Per NCTC director Michael Leiter, the Christmas underwear bomber was not defeated by trillions of dollars in spending, or by the involvement of more than 850,000 top secret contractors in the intelligence community. It became insanely hard to tell who was doing what, where or even when. Admiral Dennis Blair, former National Intelligence Director, admitted to oversight committees that he hadn’t designated clear responsibility regulating the mess to those involved.

And as if that weren’t laughable enough, senior intelligence officials are being expected to read through mountains of classified information reports – one of them, bearing the name of “Weekly Warning Forecast,” sounds more like a Weather Channel segment on Southeast hurricane activity than an intelligence briefing.

The intelligence community of today isn’t something that can reasonably be called “effective.” Not by a long shot. It’s been said that the best solutions are often the simplest, and that’s something an administration which has made its own efforts to take control of the Internet in the name of national security can take to the bank.

If Obama “came into office aware of the problems,” according to his own officials, then why has he taken so long to fix them?

Could it be that he doesn’t have any interest in truly taking any measures, save for those which will actually hurt our men in uniform?

This is little more than a convenient out for him to blame another one of his problems on Bush, yet again. And you can be sure the Washington Post’s writers will be eating it up – they never lifted a finger in protest of the plunging government deficit or, in Arkin’s case, a massive environmental racket devoted to increasing UN control over the world’s economies.

With two years working on this, but a grand total of one article in the past two years shedding light on the New Black Panther case – or rather, the Post’s lack of attention to same – there’s no reason to believe the folks that talked such a good game back in the Ashcroft years will paint a fresh target on anyone’s back.

Get ready for another round of Bush Derangement Syndrome, folks. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Cross-posted at RedState.com

Growing up on military bases, you learn just how similar people are. Military bases are a melting pot. Unlike the civilian world, which prides itself on diversity and the uniqueness of the individual, military personnel must find their similarities in order to learn how to get along. After all, service-members don’t choose their workmates and roommates, they’re assigned. And, at the end of the day, at least at the beginning of his time serving, each service-member generally doesn’t have his own home, his own yard, his own car, or anyplace of solitude where he can be himself. Rather, after he joins, he has no identity independent of the service and his fellow service-members. He has the same haircut, the same clothes, and often shares the same “home” as the other individuals in his unit.

Even prior to being deemed “fit for service,” individuals are stripped, quite literally, of their privacy and individuality as they enter a line wearing little more than a thin sheet to await their turns for a physical exam.

A 24 year-old friend described her introduction to the Navy like this, “Upon arrival to boot camp, we were ushered into a building and were randomly grouped. Each group was ushered into a large open bathroom that had no stall doors. There, in front of our peers and a petty officer, we were required to pee in a little cup. After I delivered my urine sample, I was marched to a supply room where, again, in front of my entire group, I was required to remove all of my civilian clothes and place them in a cardboard box before changing into my standard issue clothes.”

“During the eight weeks of boot camp, when we were given the opportunity to shower, we began the process by entering a line where all of the women were completely naked. The showers were communal, which means the shower was comprised of two poles that spray water in eight directions. While each group showered in the communal space, an elected peer timed the group showering, and the naked women who were still in line anxiously awaited their turn. This is only a taste of the exposure we were subjected to. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military would be like requiring heterosexual males and females to go through these processes together. It’s a ridiculous idea.”

The idea that service-members can completely separate their personal lives from the missions they’re assigned to is just as ridiculous. A few activists have questioned why it should matter if a service-member is engaged in homosexual conduct if the individual can focus on the “mission” when appropriate. However, a friend who is an Army officer pointed out, “a soldier’s mission is to count on his buddy for his life, and when his life is not on the line, he has to be able to completely trust his buddy.” Another friend, who served as a Marine, said the same thing, but a bit differently. He said, “this is going to make the guys in the foxhole wonder if his buddy has his back or wants to rub it.”

The Army friend continued, “changing the law puts leaders on all levels at a severe disadvantage. Nobody will be immune from the results of this decision, from the Commanders to the Chaplains. It will negatively impact unit morale and compromise missions. Additionally, many men and women who were raised with traditional values may have a hard time supporting this decision. It may be enough to motivate leaders to leave the Army, and potential leaders to stay away from it. A change in the law should not be viewed solely with an eye for equal opportunity, but on its level of practicality and pragmatism. The Army employs a bottom line mentality, and in this case, the bottom line suggests this decision will have serious and negative repercussions.”

My Army friend mentioned Chaplains. Many members of the military believe a repeal of Section 654 would significantly impact Chaplains, especially in their roles as counselors. One friend said he could see the headline of the Military Times now, “Chaplain Refuses to Counsel Same-Sex Couple.” To be a Chaplain, the service member must be endorsed by an endorsing agent. If the law is changed, the question for Chaplains will become, “do I directly risk my career by refusing to counsel those who seek affirmation of the lifestyles God condemns, or do I risk my career by acting in a way that would cause my endorsing agency to want to revoke my endorsement?”

The military culture is not like the civilian culture, and service in the military is a privilege not a right. There is no place for radical homosexual activism in the military. The families of service members are generally more traditional, more faith-oriented, and more conservative than the cultures of the cities and towns that members of the military leave to join the Service. If Senators share Admiral Mullen’s perspective that the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy makes homosexual servicemen and women lie, the policy should be repealed; however, the law that states that those who define themselves as homosexuals or bisexuals and those that engage in homosexual conduct are not eligible for military service should be left alone.

General Petraeus is considered to be the foremost amongst American military leaders; commanded the 101st Airborne Division as they drove to Baghdad; implemented the “surge,” the counter-insurgency strategy credited with our victory in the Iraq war. An avid student of military history, he wrote his doctoral dissertation for his Ph.D. at Princeton on the military lessons of the war in Vietnam, and ranked in the top 5% of his class at West Point. The US Senate appointed him head of the US Central Command in 2008, which oversees US military forces from Egypt to Afghanistan, shortly before the 2008 election. They wanted to ensure that American military personnel had strong generalship during any potentially-tumultuous transition.

So, what did President Obama see in Stanley McCrystal then, that he finally recognized in David Petraeus now? Given that President Obama is a masterful politician who weighs his every public appearance and statement by public opinion, even this move was no different.

During the Mexican-American War, President James K. Polk, a Tennessee Democrat who ran one of the most manipulative administrations in US history (perhaps, until this one), shifted around his generals in different theaters in the same fashion. He kept “Old Rough and Ready,” Zachary Taylor on ice in southwest Texas, rather than appoint him at the head of the forces landing at Vera Cruz. Polk feared any action Zachary Taylor received would make “Old Rough and Ready” into a popular general capable of challenging the Democrats for the presidency in the election of 1848. He was right, and Taylor won on public support for a grizzly war hero ahead of a party they could not trust.

While Petraeus has dismissed publicly any possibilities of him running for president in 2012, he may have showed his cards and aspirations when he spoke at Saint Anselm College, a sit of former presidential debates, in New Hampshire. He already carries immense public support, and the GOP would love to have run on their ticket, when few other GOP leaders have emerged as viable contenders to President Obama’s regime.

Obama must realize that, after empires from Alexander the Great to the Soviets from met their downfall in Afghanistan, appointing a general who could actually win would create an incredibly powerful and popular challenger for the presidency in 2012. Let us pray for our military and our country that General Petraeus can win before then.

Two hundred and thirty-four years have passed since we won our independence and became the United States of America.  Every year, on the fourth of July, we celebrate our nation’s triumph over a formidable force to obtain our own government, our own way of life.  We celebrate our freedom.

Yet, it saddens me how some have taken our freedom for granted.  Some have forgotten the men and women who unselfishly gave their lives to keep the delicate threads of our young country intact.  Some have dismissed the farmers and local militia, who defended our rights as an independent nation, as just mere fairytales.

Would you have picked up a rifle and fought against the mammoth British military?  Would you have fought to protect your family and rights even if you knew you were going to die?

I would have.  I would have died knowing that I had helped nurture the seed of liberty that has bloomed into the great country we live in today.  And as my fellow patriots marched on past my fallen body, they would gaze down at it and then look back up at the British forces and charge.  They would not allow my death to be in vain.

The sacrifices of the colonists built a nation, a nation that has become the strongest in the world because of their sacred creed: “Liberty for all!”

As I am writing this, a brave American has probably just given his or her life to protect mine.  However, their death will also not be in vain.  For they have done their best to defend our nation and the cause of freedom.  We should be thankful.  I am.

I am fortunate enough to know two former soldiers:  my father and my grandfather.  Although they didn’t give their lives for this country, they served nonetheless.  A sacrifice not all would make.

Therefore, I will honor those who have served this country and thank them whenever I get the chance.  Veterans need to know their choice of serving our country and defending freedom was a choice well made, and we, as a nation united, will be forever thankful of their efforts.

The United States has and always will be there for the world.  It will fight for those who can’t fight for themselves.  It will help those in need.  It will defend freedom wherever it is threatened because a free world is integral for peace, security, and prosperity.

All I desire is for people to remember and respect those who died for our country and for the cause of freedom across the world.  All I ask is when you hear the Star-Spangled Banner, stand, not because the person next to you has risen, stand up because nobody is forcing you to do so.

Stand because you should be proud to live in America, a nation that has given millions of dollars, prayers, and Americans to help other countries and asked for nothing in return, but a “thank-you.”

Stand because you live in a nation, where you have the freedom to voice your opinion without fear of punishment.

Never forget the men and women of our military who died to protect you from harm. They didn’t even know you, but they gave their lives for you – the ultimate sacrifice.

As constant as the Northern Star, the United States will prevail no matter how bleak the situation, no matter how fierce the foe, and no matter how many individuals try to disrupt the freedom for which our countrymen gave their lives.  For the foundation of the United States is built upon freedom and faith, and not a single degree of terrorism will cause it to quiver.

Today, tomorrow, and forever, be proud to be an American and honor those who have given their lives to keep our nation strong and protect the sacred cause of freedom.  I will.

His career was distinguished and decorated, including the Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters) and the Bronze Star. He deserved better than to be relieved of duty because of some off-color remarks made in a bar, that were reported in a dying left-wing publication like Rolling Stone Magazine.

With all that said and with all due respect to his service to our nation, he and his staff showed an incredible lack of judgment by allowing that reporter (and I use the term loosely) to be embedded with them in the first place. This lapse in judgment left President Obama no choice but to ask General McChrystal to submit his resignation.

Unlike generals like Douglas MacArthur and George Patton who had won unprecedented battles and were storied heroes of World War II, Stanley McChrystal was fighting an increasingly unpopular war. Many now question the wisdom of invading Afghanistan in the first place, while still others criticize the strategy and tactics employed in the effort. McChrystal was in fact on the losing end of a war where American soldiers and marines were dying as a direct result of his own Rules of Engagement.

The counter-insurgency tactics he successfully championed and sold to President Obama are controversial to be sure. The ROE imposed upon our military in Afghanistan were unpopular with the soldiers on the ground and many military analysts here at home.

I have had the privilege of interviewing retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely and Brig. Gen. James Cash, as well as former CIA operative Michael Baker about the war in Afghanistan. Although all of these men expressed great respect for General McChrystal, they expressed staunch disagreement with the wisdom of the tactics he was employing.

No one wants the American military to kill innocent Afghans. We all want to limit collateral casualties if possible. But it’s important that when we put our brave men and women in harm’s way that we give them the resources they need to accomplish their mission and protect their lives as well.

When the rules of engagement include such things as not being allowed to fire until fired upon, not being able to call in air strikes in populated areas, or pursue Taliban fighters into populated areas, we are tying the hands of our military and putting them in unnecessary and unacceptable peril.

As we witnessed in Somalia, in what became known as the “Black Hawk Down” incident in Mogadishu, when political concerns trump military considerations our soldiers die. In the Battle of Mogadishu, political concerns about having too big a footprint caused Washington, D.C. to withhold AC-130 gunship support and prevent armored vehicles from being used. The results were dead Army Rangers and Delta Operators. The images of our dead soldiers being dragged through the streets by Somali militiamen led to our withdrawal from that troubled country and was a demoralizing blow to the morale of our troops.

With all due respect to General McChrystal, who obviously believes in the COIN strategy, in my opinion (for what it’s worth) he was the wrong general, fighting the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. He should not have been given this assignment, in the first place. But that of course is not his fault.

The fact that President Obama dithered for four months before giving the general only 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he requested for his “surge” in Afghanistan must have frustrated McChrystal tremendously, and the fact that Vice-President Biden strongly opposed the COIN strategy and favored a counter-terrorist strategy instead, also was a point of contention for the general.

McChrystal and his staff were obviously blowing off steam when they made the comments that Rolling Stone printed. But they let their guard down with the enemy in their midst and he cut them down just as surely as a Taliban infiltrator would have.

Now we have to hope that McChyrstal’s replacement, General David Petraeus, tapped by President Obama, will change the Rules of Engagement to effectively grant Obama the necessary time to defeat the Taliban and get the Afghan Army and police to defend their own people and nation.

In order to win the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan peasant-farmers, Petraeus might consider allowing them to grow poppy to be purchased by western pharmaceutical companies, rather than trying to destroy the crops or forcing the Afghans to grow some other much less lucrative crop.

We need to manage our expectations and realize the futility of trying to turn Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy—or even into an Iraqi-style democracy. We can only hope to make it a functioning country that is not a haven for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Recently, McChrystal made headlines when a Rolling Stone article entitled “Runaway General” quoted inflammatory remarks regarding the President, his objectives in Afghanistan and whether or not he was a hands on international war leader.

While only once highlighting the Rolling Stone article which recently placed the General in a stronger public view through his negative comments, he detailed both the military supervisors’ and his own responsibilities then announced General Petraeus as the replacement to McChrystal.

Retired General Tony Tata, who had served with both of the involved military leaders, rejected the release of duty in a FoxNews interview, calling the situation “a sad day,” and General McChrystal “an American Hero”. Saying ” there’s more to play than just an article in a magazine,” Tata described more internally the full situation which made up a majority of the article, a request for more soldiers in Afghanistan stating it was the President whose delayed response was affecting the current war agenda. Tata instilled the fact that relationships McChrystal made not being taken into consideration as well as the progress he has already made.

Taking a cue from Big Daddy, onlookers channeled their best rendition of audacity as they attempted to legitimately be ‘surprised’ by the inclusion of one of the greatest villains in History (a pawn though he was). Audacity turned to disgust, disgust to contempt, and finally, contempt evolved into proactive discontent. Not only have local lawmakers been bogged down with phone calls and emails demanding the removal of the Stalin shout-out, but multiple embassies have been distressed by an overflow of complaints from their respective communities. Europeans are particularly appalled as they have spent decades attempting to erase any trace of communist paraphernalia from their public areas.

Officials hope that the inscription below the bust will fend off activists for as long as it can, it reads:

“In memory of the tens of millions who died under Stalin’s rule and in tribute to all whose valor, fidelity, and sacrifice denied him and his successors victory in the cold war.”

*Image from DotPenn.com