Posts

Do we strike now or wait until Iran has nuclear weapons and face a nuclear catastrophe?

Today we can stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, or we can wait and suffer an unimaginable nuclear catastrophe.

Four nuclear sites are key to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Isfahan, Arak, Natanz and Qom. Isfahan and Arak are above ground and can be destroyed by air or sea launched missiles. Natanz is under an earth berm and reinforced concrete and Qom is built inside a mountain. The U.S. currently has ordinance that can penetrate these two facilities. with its Massive Ordinance Penetrators ( MOP’s). Iran has other nuclear weapons facilities as well but they a much less important.

Sanctions have had little effect on stopping Iran’s march toward nuclear weapons. It is increasingly apparent that the only way to stop Iran’s march toward developing nuclear weapons are targeted air strikes against these four sites. This may also stop Iran’s goal for a Persian Shiite Caliphate and terrorist activities that will surely result in an all out war between Shiites and the Sunni majority.

If the U.S. strikes Iran’s four major nuclear sites it will bear no relationship to the extended wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. No U.S. ground troops will be involved. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities likely will take only several days. If the U.S. fails to take action it is likely Israel will. However Israel’s ability to eliminate the threat is probably limited to Iran’s two above ground nuclear facilities. It may set Iran’s nuclear weapons program back a couple of years. However only the U.S. can set it back for many years or permanently.

If Israel takes preemptive action the U.S. will nevertheless be drawn into the fray. Iran knows Obama will not initiate military action, however Iran’s recent naval action attacking a mockup of a U.S. aircraft carrier is a warning to the U.S., if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities Iran will attack U.S. ships in the area.This was the purpose of Iran’s recent naval exercise sinking a mockup U.S. aircraft carrier. Under these circumstances the U.S. should take preemptive action and not wait to be attacked.

The U.S. can prevent nuclear proliferation and ultimately a nuclear catastrophe if it destroys the four key facilities from the air before Iran has nuclear weapons.  Without nuclear weapons Iran has limited options to strike America or Europe. Other nations who would like nuclear weapons are waiting to see what the U.S. does.

In 1939 the world was in a similar place. Hitler’s Nazi Germany could have been stopped before it  invaded Czechoslovakia which allowed Nazi Germany to build a massive war machine. England and France could have easily stopped Germany at that time. They failed to do so and over 60 million people died. We are in the same position now with Iran as England and France were then. We can only hope  U.S. leadership doesn’t repeat the 1939 mistakes. If the U.S. fails to take preemptive action soon a nuclear catastrophe in the future is inevitable.

Read this interesting analysis by Joshua Muravchik:

Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

The logical flaw in the indictment of a looming “very bad” nuclear deal with Iran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered before Congress this month was his claim that we could secure a “good deal” by calling Iran’s bluff and imposing tougher sanctions. The Iranian regime that Netanyahu described so vividly — violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States — is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any “good deal” or by cheating.

This gives force to the Obama administration’s taunting rejoinder: What is Netanyahu’s alternative? War? But the administration’s position also contains a glaring contradiction. National security adviser Susan Rice declared at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference before Netanyahu’s speech that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” So if Iran will accept only a “bad deal,” what is President Obama’s alternative? War?

Obama’s stance implies that we have no choice but to accept Iran’s best offer — whatever is, to use Rice’s term, “achievable” — because the alternative is unthinkable.

But should it be? What if force is the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? That, in fact, is probably the reality. Ideology is the raison d’etre of Iran’s regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world. Iran aims to carry its Islamic revolution across the Middle East and beyond. A nuclear arsenal, even if it is only brandished, would vastly enhance Iran’s power to achieve that goal.

Such visionary regimes do not trade power for a mess of foreign goods. Materialism is not their priority: They often sacrifice prosperity to adhere to ideology. Of course, they need some wealth to underwrite their power, but only a limited amount. North Korea has remained dirt poor practicing its ideology of juche, or self-reliance, but it still found the resources to build nuclear weapons.

Sanctions may have induced Iran to enter negotiations, but they have not persuaded it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. Nor would the stiffer sanctions that Netanyahu advocates bring a different result. Sanctions could succeed if they caused the regime to fall; the end of communism in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and of apartheid in South Africa, led to the abandonment of nuclear weapons in those states. But since 2009, there have been few signs of rebellion in Tehran.

Otherwise, only military actions — by Israel against Iraq and Syria, and through the specter of U.S. force against Libya — have halted nuclear programs. Sanctions have never stopped a nuclear drive anywhere.

Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.

Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists.

Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary. Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.

Much the same may be said in reply to objections that airstrikes might not reach all the important facilities and that Iran would then proceed unconstrained by inspections and agreements. The United States would have to make clear that it will hit wherever and whenever necessary to stop Iran’s program. Objections that Iran might conceal its program so brilliantly that it could progress undetected all the way to a bomb apply equally to any negotiated deal with Iran.

And finally, wouldn’t Iran retaliate by using its own forces or proxies to attack Americans — as it has done in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia — with new ferocity? Probably. We could attempt to deter this by warning that we would respond by targeting other military and infrastructure facilities.

Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes. Wrenchingly, that might be the price of averting the heavier losses that we and others would suffer in the larger Middle Eastern conflagration that is the likely outcome of Iran’s drive to the bomb. Were Iran, which is already embroiled in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, further emboldened by becoming a “nuclear threshold state,” it would probably overreach, kindling bigger wars — with Israel, Arab states or both. The United States would probably be drawn in, just as we have been in many other wars from which we had hoped to remain aloof.

Yes, there are risks to military action. But Iran’s nuclear program and vaunting ambitions have made the world a more dangerous place. Its achievement of a bomb would magnify that danger manyfold. Alas, sanctions and deals will not prevent this.

RELATED ARTICLE: An End to Iran’s Containment? – Editorial (Washington Post)

Father of a fallen U.S. Marine returns condolence letter to President Obama with comments

Steven R. Hogan, father of fallen U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Hunter D. Hogan took the condolence letter he received from Barack Obama and wrote with his own hand the following:

“I wonder how many of these get returned to you!

“Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama,

I am deeply saddened that you are the President of the United States. You sir are an embarrassment to the Oval Office. My son, as well as most Marines I know, despise you and your lack of representation for our military.

Your ridiculous rules of engagement have caused the massive amount of casualties on your watch in Afghanistan. While we watch your media pander to your administration and clearly sweep things under the rug for you, I fully understand Marines die. You have tied their hands & feet!

I am thankful I did not serve under a Comm. in Chief such as you. I am sickened that my son had to. I wonder… I doubt that you will see this, I hope you do though!”

“Steve Hogan”

Kyle Becker, from IJReview.com, writes, “While President Obama boasts of ending the War in Afghanistan, a Marine dad’s letter from 2012 helps put this ‘achievement’ in perfect perspective. The comments on a letter of condolence from President Obama to Steven R. Hogan, posted publicly, tells a much different narrative than the one the White House and much of the news media have trumpeted.”

“In the 13-year war, over 74% of all military casualties have occurred on President Obama’s watch. In addition, a staggering 92% of all Marine deaths have happened under this presidency,” notes Becker.

letter-of-condolence-military-families-are-outing-obama-formal-letter-sample-picture-condolence-letter-795x1024

For a larger view click on the image.

U.S. Officials in meltdown over Obama’s Ebola mission

In the Middle East, for the past 3 years, Obama has avoided exercising traditional U.S. leadership in the world community to mobilize support for the prevention of the continued slaughter of Christians (by his inaction, by taking no action), he has signaled ISIL that it is safe to continue slaughtering Christians.  Obama continues to state almost daily, that there will be no boots on the ground in the Middle East; ISIL has become emboldened by his telling them what he will not do..

Instead of inserting boots on the ground with small Special Operations units in the Levant of what used to be Iraq, to coordinate command & control, U.S. air operations & strikes, and gathering of actionable intelligence, and instead of putting 3000 military boots on the ground along the southern border to stem the massive influx of Illegal Immigrants, drug smugglers, human smugglers, and terrorist flooding across the southern border, Obama is executing a very dangerous plan to deploy 3,000 US military personnel to the Ebola infected jungles of Liberia.  Obama has placed the 3,000 military personnel under the command of the State Department not the Defense Department.

Helping contain Ebola is not the duty for the U.S. Armed Forces to perform, the US Military is not an organization that contain contagious and infectious diseases that have no cure.  It is something the UN Health Organization together with the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention should be doing, it is not a military mission the military was properly trained to execute.  U.S. Armed Forces personnel should be employed in combat operations; this is just another abuse of U.S. Military personnel by Obama. (please read the below listed article).

The Obama administration representatives could not answer some very basic questions: was there adequate protective and preventive medical equipment and health training procedures that they would provide to the 3000 military personnel, to make sure military personnel would not get infected with Ebola.  The Obama administration had no answers to those question posed by the press. In recent days, health officials around the world have become alarmed by the prospect that the Ebola virus could mutate and go airborne, then the spread of infection would be virtually be impossible to contain.

Obama’s order to deploy 3,000 boots on the ground in West Africa to help contain Ebola is risking infecting the nation with a  killer plague that has no medical cure.  This latest unsound and flawed initiative by the occupant of the Oval Office, hazarding the lives of 3000 US military personnel with the possibility of being infected with Ebola, further displays a lack of cautious and intelligent leadership.    The Speaker of the House endorsed Obama’s perilous policy, that risks the security of the nation and hazards the lives of children and the elderly in America.

Obama’s initiatives will be praised and celebrated by the left of center liberal media establishment. Obama’s very dangerous decision will be hazarding the entire nation, especially when the 3000 military personnel return—they should all be quarantined, off shore, for at least 2 months before they are allowed to set foot back on CONUS.  This risky initiative, will result in more of the American people not trusting the judgment of the President or the Speaker of the House, since they are both supporting a policy, that is endangering the safety and security of the American people.

U.S. OFFICIALS IN MELTDOWN ON OBAMA’S EBOLA MISSION

Can’t answer questions posed at congressional hearing on crisis

By JEROME R. CORSI

WASHINGTON, D.C. – At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday on Ebola, government health workers were unable to answer specific questions posed by Republicans skeptical of President Obama’s decision to deploy 3,000 U.S. troops to Liberia to combat the disease.

None of the government health witnesses testifying were able to answer basic questions, including how many physicians and nurses would be among the 3,000 troops allocated or what type of protective equipment and training would be employed to prevent infection.

The witnesses explained the State Department was in charge of the military mission, not the Pentagon.

“Who do we call when there is a problem with the troops in Liberia?” asked Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, a physician and a guest on the committee.

“You call USAID,” replied Nancy Lindborg, assistant administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID.

She explained the situation in Liberia is a medical emergency, and USAID is directing the Obama administration’s response in West Africa.

USAID reports to the State Department, not to the Department of Defense.

As WND reported, retired Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin has charged that sending American troops to combat Ebola in Liberia is “an absolute misuse of the U.S. military.”

Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., began the questioning by asking the government health witnesses whether or not the Obama administration has allocated sufficient funding to support the military mission in Liberia. Smith also asked what steps the administration plans to take to protect the health of the troops deployed there.

Unable to directly answer Smith’s questions, Lindborg stressed the U.S. wants to provide “command and control” in Liberia, coordinating international efforts to provide physicians and nurses.

Lindborg promised to deliver after the hearing a breakdown of the roles the 3,000 U.S. troops would play.

She explained the goal of the military mission is to establish a Joint Force Command headquartered in Liberia to serve as a regional command for U.S. military activities in the region. The plan is also to establish an Ebola “training boot camp” to train up to 500 local health care workers weekly and to set up a 25-bed hospital in Liberia open to all health care aid workers in West Africa who contract the disease.

“When will the 3,000 military be in theater?” Smith asked. “Can you also reassure the American people that the military deployed to Liberia will have adequate protective medical equipment and training to make sure our troops do not get infected with Ebola while in the region”

Lindborg was unable to provide Smith precise timelines for the arrival of U.S. troops nor was she able to detail the protective medical equipment and training the troops will be provided prior to arrival.

Coming to Limburg’s defense, Dr. Beth Bell, director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, explained the CDC has prepared material regarding what medical personnel dispatched to West Africa to combat Ebola need to know before they arrive in the disease hot zone.

In her prepared opening statement, Bell appeared to minimize the risk presented by the current outbreak, stressing Ebola is “not a significant health threat to the United States.”

She argued Ebola is not easily transmitted and does not spread from people who are not ill She also noted cultural norms that contribute to the spread of the disease in Africa, such as burial customs, are not a factor in the U.S.

“There is a window of opportunity to tamp down the spread of this disease, but that window is closing,” Bell testified. “The best way to prevent the Ebola virus from reaching the United States is to contain the virus outbreak in West Africa now.”

She told the committee that the $600 million the United Nations believes will be needed to get supplies to West African countries to get the virus under control is “an underestimate.”

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained the NAAID has begun active human testing of various alternative therapies and experimental drugs to combat Ebola. The effort includes working with Mapp Biopharmaceutical, Inc. to develop MB-003, a combination of three antibodies that has successfully prevented Ebola from developing in monkeys when administered as late as 48 hours after exposure.

In combination with the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, NIAID is testing an experimental vaccine that uses a chimpanzee virus similar to the common cold virus, Chimp Adenovirus 3 (Cad3), as a carrier, or vector, to introduce the Ebola virus genes into the body, with the goal of stimulating an immune response.

Fauci, under questioning from the committee, argued that while it is possible the Ebola virus could mutate in Liberia to become airborne, it is unlikely.

“The American public should not lose sleep over the possibility Ebola will go airborne,” he said. “But we have to contain the virus right now, because the more the virus escalating, infecting additional people, the greater the chance the virus will mutate.”

ABOUT JEROME R. CORSI

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is “Who Really Killed Kennedy?”

Our Pathetic President

The first thing you need to keep in mind is that Syria and Iraq are now just lines on a map at this point. They don’t exist as national states because the former is locked in a civil war that will replace its dictator one way or the other and the latter’s alleged government is deeply divided between the usual schism of Sunni and Shiite.

More to the point, Iraq’s government is led by men who are the friends and pawns of Iran. In a recent issue of the Iranian newspaper, Eternad, an Iranian analyst commented on the new Iraqi cabinet noting that its new prime minister “enjoys Iran’s support and spend his formative years in Iran, and continued (the operation of the Islamic al-Dawa party) until the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

That fall was the result of the war waged against Saddam by President George W. Bush. The Iranian analyst noted that Iraq’s new foreign minister, Dr. Ebrahim Jafari “until recently lived in Tehran in Iran, and enjoyed Iran’s support in spite of his differences with Nouri al-Maleki (the former prime minister). The new Iraqi oil minister, transport minister, and minister of sport and youth were all described as “close to Iran, who either lived in Iran before, fought against the Ba’ath regime with Iran’s help, or constantly traveled to Iran.”

Iraq and Syria came into being when French and British diplomats created them as colonies following the end of World War I, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Treaty of Versailles.

In his September 10th speech, President Obama uttered the word “war” only once and then only to say “We will not be dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”

The speech, like everything he says, was a lie constructed to undue the truth he inadvertently admitted when he revealed “We have no strategy.”  If you do not intend to go to war, you do not need a strategy. Instead, you can pretend to the American public that the war will be fought by Iraqis and Syrians.

So far the Syrian civil war has cost that “nation” 200,000 lives and driven a million Syrians out of the country. As for the Iraqis, their military fled in the face of the ISIS forces, leaving behind the weapons we gave them. Between Iraq and Syria, ISIS now controls a landmass larger than the size of Great Britain.

In the course of the speech, Obama said he had dispatched 475 more troops to Iraq. We have an estimated 1,500 or more troops on the ground. That is barely the size of an infantry regiment, composed of two battalions of between 300 and 1,300 troops each.

Significantly, though, Obama opened the speech by reminding Americans that he had “brought home 140,000 American troops from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year.”

President Obama has announced he intends to send up to 3,000 troops to West Africa to help combat Ebola. He can find troops to put in harm’s way in Africa, but not to combat ISIS.

All he has ever wanted to do is to flee from our declared enemies whether they are al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS or other Islamic holy warriors. Those numbers signal his failure to follow up our sacrifices in those two nations.

Years after World War II and the Korean War, we still have combat troops in Europe, South Korea, and on bases around the world, but he is pulling out troops in the two nations where our interests are currently threatened. He called the enemy “small groups of killers.” He claimed that “America is safer.”

He appears to think the greatest threat of our time, the holy war being waged by fanatical Muslims, can be won with air strikes and measures that do “not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”

Fighting on foreign soil is what American combat troops did throughout the last century and into this one. They helped defeat Germany and the Japanese Empire in World War II. They stopped the communist North Korean attack on the South, but had less success in the long Vietnam War. They were successful in the Gulf wars until Obama was elected.

We have a President who has displayed a lack of leadership, a lack of judgment, ignorance of history, a cowardly approach to the threats we face, and who has demonstrated over and over again that he is a liar. His administration is likely to be judged the most corrupt in the history of the nation, indifferent to the Constitution and our laws.

Proclaiming that he “could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform”, this is a President who has engaged in dramatically reducing the size of our military to pre-World War II levels. After a two-star general, Major General Harold J. Green, was killed in Afghanistan in April not one single member of the White House attended his funeral. Obama was playing golf.

America must survive a man who many have come to believe is “the worst President” in our history. An essential stop toward that will be to defeat as many Democratic Party incumbents and candidates for office in the November 4 midterm elections. Americans—patriots—can do no less at this point.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Obama cuts military pay for a second year in a row

On August 29th, President Obama sent a letter notifying Congress that he is using his authority under law to cap the active duty military pay raise at 1 percent in 2015.

Typically the active duty pay raise is determined by private sector wage growth, measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index (ECI). The ECI calls for a 1.8 percent pay raise in 2015.

However, the President has executive authority to make an alternative pay adjustment if he considers it necessary due to national emergency or economic concerns.

This is the second consecutive year the President used his authority to implement a lower pay raise.

From 2000 to 2012, Congress worked hard to eliminate a 13.5 percent military pay gap with the private sector caused by repeatedly capping military raises in the 1980s and ‘90s.

But the restoration of military pay comparability with the private sector is under threat. Pay has been capped for two years, and the administration’s FY 2015 budget proposes to continue caps for a total of six years.

Earlier this year, the House rejected the administration’s pay cap and authorized a 1.8 percent raise in its version of the FY 2015 defense authorization bill and appropriated funding to pay for it. The Senate Armed Services Committee supported the administration’s 1.0 percent cap.

To reverse the President’s decision to cap pay in 2015, Congress would need to override the President’s authority to alter the pay raise from the ECI.

Military Officers Association of America President Vice Adm. Norb Ryan, U.S. Navy (Ret.) responded to the President’s announcement, saying “Pay raises for the military, just like those of average Americans, are important for retention. It’s a fundamental principle of sustaining the all-volunteer force… History has shown that once Congress starts accepting proposals to cap military pay below private sector growth, those caps continue until retention and readiness are compromised.”

Comparability can’t work unless it’s sustained through both good and bad budget times.

EDITORS NOTE: MOAA is asking concerned citizens and veterans to send a MOAA-suggested message and ask Congress to support a 1.8 percent raise that keeps military pay on pace with private sector wage growth.

Never mind ISIS, Pentagon focusing on letting transgenders serve [VIDEO]

Let me see, ISIS just beheaded an American citizen and is committing genocide against Christians and religious minorities. Ukraine has captured Russian soldiers in its country. Israel is engaged in a conflagration against Hamas and has recently endured rockets fired from Hezbollah in the north. We have a porous southern border and tens of thousands of illegal aliens have been dispersed all over our country. No one is talking about Iran anymore, and its economic sanctions are eased. We just found out that an American, Douglas MacArthur McCain, who grew up in Minnesota was killed in Syria — fighting for ISIS.

And with all that, what is the national security focus of the Pentagon and the Obama administration? Transgendered soldiers.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, “Having already lifted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays in the military, the Pentagon “likely will” allow transgendered Americans to serve openly in the military where 15,500 now secretly serve, according to a new report issued by top former generals.”

“Three of the top brass, endorsing the deployment of transgendered troops, also said their effort has the support of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and President Obama. In a statement accompanying the 29-page report issued Tuesday, they said, “Our conclusion is that allowing transgender personnel to serve openly is administratively feasible and will not be burdensome or complicated. Three months have passed since Defense Secretary Hagel announced a willingness to review the military’s ban on transgender service, an effort the White House indicated it supports.”

Unlike the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban repealed by Congress, the transgender ban falls “under the authority and jurisdiction of the president and secretary of defense,” said the “Report of the Planning Commission on Transgender Military Service” published by the Palm Center, an arm of San Francisco State University.

Fundamental transformation, social egalitarianism, and social justice — those are the critical national security imperatives for this administration. We are handing out pink slips to combat leaders — as we highlighted here, in the plight of one Army Major at Ft. Leavenworth — but this is of far more vital interest, apparently.

Endorsing the policy change are retired Maj. Gen. Gale S. Pollock, former acting surgeon general of the Army; Brig. Gen. Clara Adams-Ender, former chief of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps; and Brig. Gen. Thomas A. Kolditz, a Yale University professor and professor emeritus at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he led the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership. Hmm, I wonder if any frontline combat leaders were consulted?

The Examiner says, “transgendered Americans don’t see themselves as the sex they were born with and sometimes undergo hormone treatment or sex change surgery. The report suggested that the military allow those in the military who feel that way to get the medical care they need.”

So does this mean Defense Department healthcare dollars will go to pay for this treatment — meaning U.S. taxpayer dollars? And I thought we were overburdening the defense healthcare system? There are already rumors that imprisoned Army soldier Bradley “Chelsea” Manning will be allowed to undergo hormonal treatment paid for by the Army. And once folks make the change, I suppose the Pentagon should follow the British model in letting transgenders wear the gender-appropriate uniform in which they feel most comfortable.

In 2004 I retired from 22 years of active duty service in the U.S. Army — ten years ago this month — perhaps God knew what was best.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Sarasota, Florida hosting Female Wounded Warriors Retreat on September 16-19, 2014

“Women veterans are increasing in numbers for military service and will continue to do so….”

Georgie Alfano-Cronk

Georgie Alfano-Cronk

Annually the Sarasota County Veterans Commission (SCVC) recognizes the Veteran of the Year, Woman Veteran of the Year and Auxiliary Person of the Year. In 2010, the Female Veteran of the Year Award went to Ms. Georgie Alfano-Cronk.

Far too often, when someone receives an award they tend to quietly return home and place their award on a shelf to just collect dust. But not so with Alfano-Cronk. Alfano-Cronk is a U.S. Army disabled woman veteran.

Alfano-Cronk states, “We have many ‘women warriors’ that need our recognition and assistance in transitioning back into their communities or back into the work force”. Alfano-Cronk has become a passionate advocate for America’s women veterans.

Alfano-Crock notes, “No matter where our female veterans are in their lives; whenever they need help navigating the VA system or just need an ear to listen to one of their concerns, they dial my phone number. As a former police officer and retired New York State Correction Sergeant I can easily look at a veteran’s life and view their problems without passing judgment on them.” She knows how hard the road of life can be because she herself has been there and done that.

By 2011, she had convinced the SCVC that a special committee should be named and formed to assist woman veterans after military service. She was nominated for and became the Chairwoman of this newly formed committee.

Fast forward from November 2011 to the present when Alfano-Crock discovered a not-for-profit organization, which loves veterans and their families as much as she does, and partnered with them. This organization is the Professionals Assisting Military Families & Friends (PAMFF). Working together the SCVC and PAMFF decided to have a free retreat for America’s women warriors. The retreat allows women wounded warriors a safe environment to share their transitional concerns and receive free counseling and access to support groups after the retreat is over.

Then there was that little problem of fundraising for the retreat.

SCVC and PAMFF knew early on that they wanted to make this a totally free event. The PAMFF committees, without any major contacts or knowledge of grants or fundraising, began to solicit donations from veterans’ organizations and community members. But would that be enough financial support? As the applications starting rolling in from women veterans across America, the PAMFF selection committee, decided that none of the women veterans should be turned away and so the original number of 10 applicants allowed to participate in the event increased to 15 women veterans. There is still a waiting list and applications are no longer being accepted.

The reaction from women veterans clearly shows a need to support, recognize, and help them as much as there is for their male counterparts.

Alfano-Crock notes that since women veterans were trained to be strong and independent, like their male counterparts, that often a women veteran will not ask for help until she is in a full blown, major crisis. And often they do not know where to find the proper resources to help them or to move ahead. Women veterans have a tendency to fall through the cracks of an already saturated VA health care system.

Alfano-Crock is adamant that female veteran’s needs are “totally different” than the needs of our male veterans and wounded warriors.

Women naturally process life’s ups and downs differently than men do and need a different type of an environment to vent and must have a trust system in place with a counselor prior to sharing their personal stories and unique concerns.

From Tuesday, September 16th to Friday, September 19th, 2014 fifteen “woman warriors” will share their lives with each other, and with PAMFF’s licensed clinicians and female community volunteers and form “battle buddy relationships” that will hopefully blossom and grow. “After all,” says Alfano-Crock, “the most therapeutic sharing sessions are those that are done in a nurturing environment with other veterans present who have gone through the same sequence of events and realize the type of traumas that often accompany military life and war. No one understands a veteran better than another veteran who has ‘walked the walk’.”

RETREAT INFORMATION:

Event Title: “A Season of Change – You Can!” 1st Annual Retreat for Female Veterans.
What: Topics for discussion will be: MST, TBI, PTS, Balance in One’s Life, Heeding the Red Flags, Interviewing and Job Hunting Techniques, Meditation, Resources, and many more.
When: September 16th – 19th
Where: Christian Retreat Conference Center in Bradenton, FL

EDITORS NOTE: Applications are closed for this retreat. For any additional questions or information you may contact Georgie Alfano-Cronk at (941) 266-2769 or PAMFF at (941) 224-1094. PAMFF still needs financial assistance to keep the retreat free for the 15 attendees. PAMFF must secure approximately $400.00 per person in donations. If you wish you may send a donation to PAMFF, P.O. Box 2171, Sarasota, FL 34230. The featured image is of Ladda Tammy Duckworth an American woman wounded warrior and politician who has been the U.S. Representative for Illinois’s 8th congressional district since 2013.

Liam Neeson movie explains why Obama wants to decimate the military

The new Liam Neeson film reveals exactly why Obama wants to shrink the military – and accommodate more turbans, beards, and hijabs. We’ve got the good and bad guys all mixed up!

You know, I’ve always enjoyed Liam Neeson, since his 1995 adventure film Rob Roy where he portrayed the18th century Scottish hero Rob Roy MacGregor. And I even got my entire family of West women to sit down and watch the first “Taken” film, one of their favorites. So when I saw the trailers for Liam Neeson’s film “Non-Stop” I was kinda excited. Now, thanks to an article in Breitbart.com, I’m kinda not.

**SPOILER ALERT** You can’t read the rest of this article without having it ruin the surprise ending for you. But after you read this article, I don’t think you’re going to want to see it anyway. Unless you want to get pissed off.

John Nolte writes at Breitbart.com, “There is no question that “Non-Stop” is a well-made, involving, not-terribly-dumb action-thriller that delivers plenty of suspense and endears Liam Neeson further into the heart of those of us who love well-made, involving, not-terribly-dumb action-thrillers. “Non-Stop” is a good movie. Heck, it is darn near very good. But the left-wing sucker punch at the end is a new low, even for Hollywood.”

On an international flight over the Atlantic, burnt-out alcoholic flight marshal Bill Marks (Neeson) is hoping for a nice easy flight in first class. But he gets a text message informing him that one person on the flight will die every twenty-minutes unless $150 million is wired to an account.

People start to die. Marks is fingered as the hijacker. Who’s doing this? Why are they doing this? What is their motive?

Well, here’s the kicker folks. The villain is not a hijacker but a terrorist with a political goal. The terrorist is a 9/11 family member, yep, that’s right, a family member who lost a loved one at the World Trade Towers.

But that’s not all — after 9/11 this family member joined the military but found himself disillusioned by the “pointless wars.” So now we have a 9/11 family member, former US Army serviceman, who will be seen as having suffered from PTSD due to America’s involvement in a worthless combat endeavor.

But that is still not all — the 9/11 family member-former serviceman-turned terrorist is upset because America hasn’t done enough to ensure there will never be another 9/11. And so he figures if he can get an air marshal blamed for a terrorist attack forcing America to wake up. And who is his sidekick? Another former member of the American military. But the insidious left wing plot doesn’t even end there, as Nolte reveals, “The one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.”

So now we know why President Obama wants to shrink the US military — clearly they are actually all a bunch of undercover terrorists who will eventually blow up planes and kill innocent Americans. Now I thoroughly comprehend why Obama has mandated the US military accept turbans, beards, and hijabs — they are the good guys.

I don’t hold any of this against Liam Neeson — well, perhaps I do. He should have read the screenplay and said, as John Nolte does at the end of his review, “screw you, Hollywood.”

And that’s exactly my sentiment. You’re not getting a dime from me to watch this FUBAR film.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Religious freedom under attack at Florida’s military bases

I am dedicated to the First Amendment. The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a reason the First Amendment begins with and is anchored by the “free exercise” of religion. America was founded as and remains a Judeo-Christian nation. The Armed Forces are a bastion of Judeo-Christian values, a tradition that pre-dates the founding of the United States of America. The absolute need for a military chaplaincy was understood and promoted by General George Washington. Military chaplains were authorized by the Second Continental Congress, at Washington’s insistence, on July 29, 1775, thereby predating the Declaration of Independence by one year. Chaplains have been the center of support and succor for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, the Coast Guard and their families as they deal with the pressures of war fighting, prolonged absences and duty to the nation.

Florida is home to twenty-one military bases and facilities, including the headquarters of the US Central Command at MacDill AFB in Tampa, FL.

Religious freedom is under attack within our military as demonstrated in the video below courtesy of the Thomas More Law Center. In the video members of the US Armed Forces speak out about the culture of fear and intimidation in the US military that is forcing Christian soldiers to hide their faith in Florida and elsewhere.

TMLC states, “This is happening despite the fact that, since its inception, America has been considered a Christian Nation. The overwhelming percentage of the men and women who currently serve in our Armed Forces are Christian. And an overwhelming percentage of those who have died in defense of our country were Christian.”

The attacks on Christianity in the military have caused the Bible to be banned from military hospitalschaplains to be deemed non-essentialprayer to be banned from military funerals and soldiers to be dismissed for voicing their Christian beliefs about homosexual marriage. For a more exhaustive list of attacks on the religious freedom prepared by the Family Research Council of Christians click here.

“The attack on the religious freedom of Christians in the military is a warning for us all of what is coming if we do not stop it now,” warns TMLC.

TMLC asks, “If you are a member of the Armed Forces in Florida and believe that your right to religious freedom as a Christian has been violated click here to complete the legal help request form or call the Thomas More Law Center at 734-827-2001.”

EDITORS NOTE: The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Watchdog Wire have begun an effort to raise awareness about and protect the First Amendment using the #IAM1A project. To learn more about #IAM1A click here.

ABOUT THE THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER:

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.