May 26, 2013
Tea Party Nation--By Alan Caruba
“You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you.” -- Leon Trotsky
If you think about the presidents who we remember and honor the most, it is those who faced war and rallied the nation to victory. Our first president, George Washington, sustained the Revolutionary War for eight long years against daunting odds, including a Continental Congress that often provided little support for the men under his command that were fighting to create a new, free nation.
Washington’s reputation in war and peace is the reason that the Constitution designates the President as Commander-in-Chief. He was so highly regarded for his conduct of the Revolution that the Founders concluded that future presidents had to be free to wage war, but only after Congress declared that a state of war existed.
America, however, has not formally passed a declaration of war since WWII and then because it had been declared against us first. Since then wars have often been fought under the sanction given by the United Nations as was the case in the Korean conflict and the two Gulf wars, an erosion of our national sovereignty.
Lincoln is revered for having preserved the Union during the bloodiest conflict this nation ever fought. Franklin D. Roosevelt earned his place in our history for mobilizing the nation prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, assisting Great Britain prior to entering the World War II, and then pursuing an aggressive policy to defeat the Axis nations.
Quite a few of our presidents gained fame in various conflicts, from Washington to Grant to Eisenhower. Other presidents presided over wars both long and short.
In a speech on May 23, given ironically at the National Defense University, President Obama did his best to run away from war. His opposition to the war in Iraq, his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, and his efforts to close Guantanamo will likely be seen in the same way as the Clinton policies of the 1990s when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States on behalf of al Qaeda and subsequently attacked the World Trade Towers twice, in 1993 and on September 11, 2001. Weakness always encourages aggression.
In an application of magical thinking, at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the entire U.S. military was instructed not to use the term “global war on terrorism”, replacing it instead with “overseas contingency.” The Obama administration has refused to identify the May 22nd murder of a British soldier on the streets of London by an Islamist as terrorism.
Obama spent his first term and now his second insisting that al Qaeda has been defeated despite ample evidence that it has not. He has never ceased to downplay any event that suggests we and the rest of the world are not engaged in a war with radical Islam.
The Benghazi scandal arose out of an effort to claim and cover-up that the attack was “spontaneous” and the result of an anti-Islam video despite the fact that it occurred on September 11, 2012. Earlier, an attack on soldiers based at Fort Hood was declared “workplace violence.” The bombing in Boston was glossed over as a criminal act, not a terrorist act of war.
The absurdity and the danger of not describing the many instances of the Islamic jihad is a failure of major proportions and not being willing to take preemptive action against its perpetrators suggests it will grow, not diminish, and not cease to threaten the homeland and the world.
In a scathing May 24 analysis of his speech, “President Obama is Tired of Fighting Terrorism”, the Heritage Foundation said that “even as new fronts in the war on terrorism sprang up, the Administration continued to argue that it was winning” despite the Benghazi attack, despite the Boston bombing, despite the attacks in Afghanistan. Time and again Obama has said that the assassination of Osama bin Laden marked the end of al Qaeda and that the isolated drone attacks have reduced its ability to wage jihad. It has not, but Obama proposed scaling back the use of drones.
“The war of ideas,” said Heritage, “was completely banned from the Obama lexicon. Islamist terrorism became ‘violent extremism.’ Terrorism became ‘senseless violence.’ In 2011, however, Obama shifted course dramatically."
"More than dumping the war of words, the White House signed off on a new counterterrorism strategy that amounted to running away from Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible and limiting the offensive campaign to whacking top-level al Qaeda with drone strikes”, noting that “The new strategy was bound to fail, fighting the last war while al Qaeda evolved into a global insurgency that has spread from Pakistan to Nigeria.”
CONTINUE READING: http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A2534650&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
Showing posts with label Fort Hood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fort Hood. Show all posts
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Purple Hearts for Fort Hood Victims Listed as Reason for Obama Veto Threat
TEA PARTY.ORG
May 21, 2012
by Bridget Johnson
Why? To honor the victims in this way would acknowledge that the radical Islamist perpetrators were domestic terrorists.
Before leaving for the Memorial Day recess, the House set up a showdown with President Obama and the Senate with Friday’s passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Three days before the $642.5 billion spending bill passed 299-120, the Office of Management and Budget released a statement of administration policy on the bill, threatening a veto if numerous provisions remained in the legislation.
“If the cumulative effects of the bill impede the ability of the Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources, the President’s senior advisors would recommend to the President that he veto the bill,” the OMB warned, stressing this with underlined text.
The statement then outlined some of “a number” of “concerns” — 32, to be exact — including limitations on nuclear force reduction and a provision to block repatriated Guantanamo detainees from traveling to the U.S.
No. 26 on the list of veto-worthy offenses is objection to awarding Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings.
“The Administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas,” the veto threat states. “The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues.”
Full article can be read here: http://pjmedia.com/blog/purple-hearts-for-fort-hood-victims-listed-...
May 21, 2012
by Bridget Johnson
Why? To honor the victims in this way would acknowledge that the radical Islamist perpetrators were domestic terrorists.
Before leaving for the Memorial Day recess, the House set up a showdown with President Obama and the Senate with Friday’s passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Three days before the $642.5 billion spending bill passed 299-120, the Office of Management and Budget released a statement of administration policy on the bill, threatening a veto if numerous provisions remained in the legislation.
“If the cumulative effects of the bill impede the ability of the Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources, the President’s senior advisors would recommend to the President that he veto the bill,” the OMB warned, stressing this with underlined text.
The statement then outlined some of “a number” of “concerns” — 32, to be exact — including limitations on nuclear force reduction and a provision to block repatriated Guantanamo detainees from traveling to the U.S.
No. 26 on the list of veto-worthy offenses is objection to awarding Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings.
“The Administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas,” the veto threat states. “The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues.”
Full article can be read here: http://pjmedia.com/blog/purple-hearts-for-fort-hood-victims-listed-...
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Obama Admin Argues Fort Hood Massacre Is Merely ‘Workplace Violence’
Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.
http://visiontoamerica.org/6128/obama-admin-says-fort-hood-massacre-is-merely-workplace-violence/
http://visiontoamerica.org/6128/obama-admin-says-fort-hood-massacre-is-merely-workplace-violence/
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Rest of the Story on PFC Manning that you didn't hear on the news!
The mainstream media in USA has had this buried so deep they thought it would never see the light of day. The treasonous soldier who leaked a quarter million secret documents to the internet is a gay activist who is angry with the US military for proscribing overt homosexual behavior. To vent his anger it appears he conspired with Julian Assange to destroy the entire United States of America at worst or severely impair its ability to navigate the present minefield of world politics at the least. In any event it is likely that his fit of picque will likely cause US service members death and dismemberment. Prior to this event I had no particular strong opinions one way or the other regarding DADT. I certainly do now.
Another example of what the media doesn’t report… the story, behind the story. And again, the government got it wrong...What the media leaves out: Army staffer who leaked thousands of documents to WikiLeaks website is homosexual activist - angry at ban on gays in military.
The US Army intelligence analyst who has been arrested for disclosing more than more than 90,000 intelligence reports and more than 150,000 diplomatic cables to the Wikileaks website is a homosexual activist enraged at the military's "anti-gay" policies.
The massive publication of top-secret documents has been called one of the greatest security breeches in US history and has reportedly endangered the lives of US personnel around the world.
Bradley Manning, who is now awaiting court-marshal at a military stockade in Quantico, VA, was arrested last May for giving a classified video to the Wikileaks website, and later it became clear that he had given them thousands of other military documents. He is an open homosexual, and his anger at the military's rejection of homosexuality appears to be the major reason for his actions.
While in the Army, Manning has openly participated in gay rights marches, even publicly demonstrating against the military. In addition:
His Facebook page reportedly included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His big interest was to "Repeal the Ban" on homosexuals serving openly in the military. He proclaimed his support for the National Center for Transgender Equality. He also talked about going to gay bars.
According to newspaper reports, he was prone to fits of rage. At one point Manning was demoted for assaulting an officer. He also wore custom dog tags labeling himself as "Humanist" (as his religious affiliation). And like many male homosexuals, Manning reportedly had a terrible relationship with his father, who had also been in the military and was divorced from his mother.
Manning was very upset over a breakup earlier this year with his homosexual lover, a student at Brandeis University who according to the New York Times described himself on his blog as a "drag queen."
The Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military."
Manning said he spent 14-hour days copying the classified documents to send to the Wikileaks website.
As the Montreal Gazette reported,
Private Manning described how he downloaded the video and lip-synched to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables.
"Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack," he boasted. But even as he professed a perhaps inflated sense of purpose, he called himself "emotionally fractured" and a "wreck" and said he was "self-medicating like crazy."
Not surprisingly, Manning has since been applauded on homosexual blogs and websites across the country.
General media blackout on Manning's "gay" issue
Except for a few newspaper accounts, the mainstream media in the US has completely ignored any "gay" aspect to this story, and especially his anti-military homosexual activism. To our knowledge, none of the major TV or cable network news programs have discussed it. Though Glen Beck did mention that "he was jilted by a boyfriend or something." (That's the same Glenn Beck who doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.)
For example, on Monday The Atlantic posted an article, "WikiLeaks: One Analyst, So Many Documents". It discusses Manning in some detail, but simply describes him as "a disaffected young man".
It's pretty strange, to say the least. One wonders what else the media refuse to report.
Army ignored its own policy…
Ironically, a major issue with the Manning case is that the Army was ignoring its own policy on homosexuals serving openly.
Jonah Knox (a pseudonym used by a US Army analyst) points this out in a great article on the Accuracy in Media website this week:
Army regulation restricts leaders from determining (officially) if a soldier is a homosexual and therefore someone who should be discharged. For instance, AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph d(3) ("Noncredible information") details instances that are not considered grounds for Army leaders to open an inquiry to determine whether someone is a homosexual and therefore should be discharged. The Army regulation states that "noncredible information" includes, "The only information known is an associational activity, such as going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating with known homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes."
In Manning's case, he had a Facebook page devoted to homosexual causes that included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His associates said he went to gay bars and he talked openly about his homosexuality to others. Several have said that he was angry with the military because of the failure to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy. Incredibly, however, the Army may not have considered any of the credible evidence that he was a homosexual.
It is true that Army regulations on homosexuality create a lot of confusion. And that may be intentional based on current Department of Defense policy. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) says this in its analysis of current Department of Defense policy.
In other words, had the Army been following the law (rather than the Clinton "Don't Ask" policy regulations), this would not have happened.
Incident reiterates reasons for excluding homosexuals from military
Most public health organizations (including the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health) have observed that homosexuals are far more susceptible to mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, and violence than the general population.
The inherent emotional weakness and moral instability of people involved in homosexual behaviors and its resulting possible damage to the military have been documented going back over 100 years.
For further reading: This week Dr. Scott Lively published a fascinating article which discusses this, "The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection." We recommend it. http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/newsarchives.php?id=7661895
(Just like the Fort Hood massacre, ignoring and not enforcing the military’s/ government’s own policy creates more (emboldened) breeches , abuses and violations. This guy is a traitor, just like the Muslim major that cost American lives.)
Another example of what the media doesn’t report… the story, behind the story. And again, the government got it wrong...What the media leaves out: Army staffer who leaked thousands of documents to WikiLeaks website is homosexual activist - angry at ban on gays in military.
The US Army intelligence analyst who has been arrested for disclosing more than more than 90,000 intelligence reports and more than 150,000 diplomatic cables to the Wikileaks website is a homosexual activist enraged at the military's "anti-gay" policies.
The massive publication of top-secret documents has been called one of the greatest security breeches in US history and has reportedly endangered the lives of US personnel around the world.
Bradley Manning, who is now awaiting court-marshal at a military stockade in Quantico, VA, was arrested last May for giving a classified video to the Wikileaks website, and later it became clear that he had given them thousands of other military documents. He is an open homosexual, and his anger at the military's rejection of homosexuality appears to be the major reason for his actions.
While in the Army, Manning has openly participated in gay rights marches, even publicly demonstrating against the military. In addition:
His Facebook page reportedly included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His big interest was to "Repeal the Ban" on homosexuals serving openly in the military. He proclaimed his support for the National Center for Transgender Equality. He also talked about going to gay bars.
According to newspaper reports, he was prone to fits of rage. At one point Manning was demoted for assaulting an officer. He also wore custom dog tags labeling himself as "Humanist" (as his religious affiliation). And like many male homosexuals, Manning reportedly had a terrible relationship with his father, who had also been in the military and was divorced from his mother.
Manning was very upset over a breakup earlier this year with his homosexual lover, a student at Brandeis University who according to the New York Times described himself on his blog as a "drag queen."
The Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military."
Manning said he spent 14-hour days copying the classified documents to send to the Wikileaks website.
As the Montreal Gazette reported,
Private Manning described how he downloaded the video and lip-synched to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables.
"Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack," he boasted. But even as he professed a perhaps inflated sense of purpose, he called himself "emotionally fractured" and a "wreck" and said he was "self-medicating like crazy."
Not surprisingly, Manning has since been applauded on homosexual blogs and websites across the country.
General media blackout on Manning's "gay" issue
Except for a few newspaper accounts, the mainstream media in the US has completely ignored any "gay" aspect to this story, and especially his anti-military homosexual activism. To our knowledge, none of the major TV or cable network news programs have discussed it. Though Glen Beck did mention that "he was jilted by a boyfriend or something." (That's the same Glenn Beck who doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.)
For example, on Monday The Atlantic posted an article, "WikiLeaks: One Analyst, So Many Documents". It discusses Manning in some detail, but simply describes him as "a disaffected young man".
It's pretty strange, to say the least. One wonders what else the media refuse to report.
Army ignored its own policy…
Ironically, a major issue with the Manning case is that the Army was ignoring its own policy on homosexuals serving openly.
Jonah Knox (a pseudonym used by a US Army analyst) points this out in a great article on the Accuracy in Media website this week:
Army regulation restricts leaders from determining (officially) if a soldier is a homosexual and therefore someone who should be discharged. For instance, AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph d(3) ("Noncredible information") details instances that are not considered grounds for Army leaders to open an inquiry to determine whether someone is a homosexual and therefore should be discharged. The Army regulation states that "noncredible information" includes, "The only information known is an associational activity, such as going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating with known homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes."
In Manning's case, he had a Facebook page devoted to homosexual causes that included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His associates said he went to gay bars and he talked openly about his homosexuality to others. Several have said that he was angry with the military because of the failure to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy. Incredibly, however, the Army may not have considered any of the credible evidence that he was a homosexual.
It is true that Army regulations on homosexuality create a lot of confusion. And that may be intentional based on current Department of Defense policy. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) says this in its analysis of current Department of Defense policy.
In other words, had the Army been following the law (rather than the Clinton "Don't Ask" policy regulations), this would not have happened.
Incident reiterates reasons for excluding homosexuals from military
Most public health organizations (including the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health) have observed that homosexuals are far more susceptible to mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, and violence than the general population.
The inherent emotional weakness and moral instability of people involved in homosexual behaviors and its resulting possible damage to the military have been documented going back over 100 years.
For further reading: This week Dr. Scott Lively published a fascinating article which discusses this, "The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection." We recommend it. http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/newsarchives.php?id=7661895
(Just like the Fort Hood massacre, ignoring and not enforcing the military’s/ government’s own policy creates more (emboldened) breeches , abuses and violations. This guy is a traitor, just like the Muslim major that cost American lives.)
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Creeping Sharia
Outrage: DoD’s final report classifies Fort Hood jihad as “workplace violence”
Man-made disaster. Homegrown terror. Workplace violence.
Offensive jihad in the name of Islam against the U.S. military – perpetrated by a Muslim member of the military – who preached jihad – is now being referred to by the Department of Defense as “workplace violence.” A pdf version of the report is here, and there is a lot to review milbloggers and others. via Defense.gov News Article: Pentagon Releases Final Fort Hood Shooting Review. READ THE ARTICLE:
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16350&posts=2#M42558
Man-made disaster. Homegrown terror. Workplace violence.
Offensive jihad in the name of Islam against the U.S. military – perpetrated by a Muslim member of the military – who preached jihad – is now being referred to by the Department of Defense as “workplace violence.” A pdf version of the report is here, and there is a lot to review milbloggers and others. via Defense.gov News Article: Pentagon Releases Final Fort Hood Shooting Review. READ THE ARTICLE:
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16350&posts=2#M42558
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
