Tag Archive for: military

Schumer Puts Military at Risk by Playing Politics with Their Sidearms

/in , , , , /by

In 1995, Bob Dole said of Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), “[t]he most dangerous place is between him and a camera.” Last Friday, Schumer publicly announced a plan to require bidders for a $580 million Department of Defense contract to supply the U.S. Army with handguns to submit to questioning regarding efforts to push a gun control agenda. The fact is, Schumer’s attempt to subject the vital fighting equipment of our nation’s servicemen and women to petty politics is nothing more than a cynical attempt to indulge his lust for press coverage, and is a reckless and dangerous threat to the safety of our service men and women.

The sole intent of the DOD procurement process should be to equip our fighting men and women with the best arms for their mission. To factor in the supplier’s willingness to kowtow to Schumer’s gun control demands alongside criteria such as accuracy and reliability risks supplying our troops with inferior equipment. Our soldier’s lives rely in part on the functional capability of their weapons, and to suggest that these soldiers should be used as a political pawn to enact gun control the Senator cannot achieve through our democratic process is reprehensible.

The specifics of the proposal are outlined in a letter from Schumer to Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh. Schumer is encouraging federal agencies to require that bidding manufacturers only sell firearms to the civilian market through dealers that do not transfer a firearm where (in his words) there has not been a “completed” background check. Of course, all gun dealers are already required to conduct a NICS check prior to transferring any firearm. However, if the FBI delays a transfer for further research into a transferee’s background, but after three days is unable to determine whether the person is eligible to possess firearms, the dealer may transfer the firearm. This is an important safety-valve that restricts the federal government from arbitrarily barring individuals from acquiring firearms by delaying them in perpetuity. In the rare case that a firearm is transferred to an individual after the safety-valve period and they are later found to be prohibited, ATF routinely sends people out to retrieve the firearm.

Further, Schumer wants federal agencies to “require all participating bidders to lay out a plan for the development and sale of smart or childproof guns and accessories.”

Unfortunately, Schumer isn’t the first to put forward such a careless proposal. Back in 2000, the Clinton administration tried to strong-arm firearms manufacturers into carrying out their gun control wish list by promising lucrative local police contracts to those who signed onto an agreement with several gun control provisions. Notably, then-Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary and current Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo threatened defiant gun companies if they did not comply. Cuomo made clear to one industry member that they risked business by defying the administration, stating, “I have a lot of push with these Democratic mayors.” A more recent attempt to influence gun companies through government contracting was carried out by Jersey City, N.J. Mayor Steven Fulop.

In a press release, Schumer said that his recent proposal is “a smart way to use the federal government’s market power to force gun makers to change.” Odd, those whose lives depend on the proper functioning of their firearms when their lives are in the balance seem to think this strategy is decidedly wrong-headed.

An April 2000 Los Angeles Times article detailed the pressure the Clinton administration attempted to exert on local police forces to purchase from certain manufacturers. Capt. Garry Leonard of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department told the paper, “Politics aren’t going to enter into how we choose our firearms… When you think of what we do for a living, we just can’t take chances.” President of the Fraternal Order of Police Gilbert G. Gallegos also made clear that “’Adherence to a particular political philosophy’ shouldn’t play a part in gun purchases.”

Even billionaire gun control bankroller Michael Bloomberg seemingly knows better than to play politics with the vital equipment of those who protect us. When asked in 2011 about a proposal to use the NYPD’s handgun purchasing power to boycott a particular manufacturer, then-Mayor Bloomberg brushed-off the idea, stating, “The trouble is, if we boycott one, you probably have to boycott all of them and then you go back to the days when the crooks had better guns than the cops. We don’t want our cops out-armed, out-gunned.”

Schumer’s radical idea to compromise the safety of our service members in furtherance of his own political agenda should be rejected out of hand. The U.S. Army is no place to conduct dangerous political experiments with proposals that the people and the legislatures have repeatedly rejected.

The U.S. Un-Armed Forces Medley

/in , /by

This video created by Ronnie Buss was sent to me by Daniel, a reader.

It is great political satire about how President Obama has weakened the U.S. military to the point of no return and how the Republicans in Congress have failed to stop him on the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Watch this 2 minute video and laugh or cry for the U.S. Armed Forces:

ABOUT  RONNIE BUSS CREATOR OF THIS VIDEO:

Ronnie Buss is a singer/songwriter/parodist/common sense advocate. He regularly pokes fun at liberals, celebrities, sacred cows, and other topics. He sheds light on things that are topical and/or newsworthy.

Please subscribe to his YouTube channel by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

There’s one very DISTURBING question about the U.S. warrior just killed in Iraq

Obama Administration and UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight ‘Extremism’ In U.S.

VIDEO: Time to Stop the Jade Helm Panic Attack

/in , , /by

Jade Helm military training is well under way…is it the New World Order making its move against Americans? Watch my answer.

EDITORS NOTE: Watch the Alex Jones video referred to in this report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQMgl…

Florida Governor Rick Scott Takes Action to Expedite Concealed Weapons Licenses for Military

/in , , , /by

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA — Alarmed by a shooting rampage in Tennessee that killed four Marines and a sailor, Gov. Rick Scott on Saturday issued an executive order designed to increase protections for members of the Florida National Guard.

Scott directed Adjutant Gen. Michael Calhoun to temporarily move National Guard members from six “storefront” recruitment centers to armories. Also, he ordered Calhoun to work with local law-enforcement agencies to arrange regular security checks of armories and said the state will expedite processing of new concealed-weapons licenses for members of the National Guard.

“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that all of our National Guard members are safe,” Scott, who was scheduled to hold a late-afternoon news conference in West Palm Beach, said during a CNN interview.

The executive order said Guard members will be moved from the recruitment centers to armories until Calhoun “can fully evaluate and make recommendations for improving the security” of the centers. It said possible improvements could include installing bulletproof glass and enhancing video-surveillance equipment.

The move to expedite new concealed-weapons licenses would apply to Guard members who do not have such permits. Scott said during the CNN interview that the move is designed for “personal protection when they are not on duty.”

Scott issued the executive order two days after 24-year-old Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire at a military-recruiting center and a Navy Reserve facility in Chattanooga, Tenn. Abdulazeez, whose name has been spelled in different ways by news organizations, killed four Marines, and a Navy petty officer died early Saturday of wounds, according to the Washington Post.

The shooting spree has spurred investigations into whether Abdulazeez, who also died, had links to terrorist organizations. In a Twitter post Saturday, Florida House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island, said he supported Scott’s executive order to “help protect our military from acts of terror.”

Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, whose agency administers concealed-weapons licenses, issued a statement that said he is “fully committed to supporting our military members, and we look forward to expediting their concealed-weapon license applications.”

Range 15: A movie featuring Real Combat Veterans now a reality

/in , /by

A group of combat veterans got together and decided that Hollywood was not telling the real story about our military and combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. They decided to do something about it. They decided to raise the needed funding for a film titled “Range 15” using the IndieGoGo crowd funding website. To date they have raised over $700,000 from over 6,200 supporters, enough to begin production.

According to the Range 15 team, “This movie is so hardcore military it makes Hollywood wet itself and run home crying to mommy.” Range 15 was spawned from the veterans that make up Ranger Up and Article 15, the two largest military lifestyle brands on the planet. They recruited Ross Patterson to direct the film. Patterson is an actor and writer, known for the films: $50K and a Call Girl: A Love Story (2014), Poolboy: Drowning Out the Fury (2011) and 7-10 Split (2007).

Here’s the 11-man team that put this amazing project together and who will appear in the film :

range 15 team

Not shown in those supporting Range 15 is Marcus Luttrell author of “Lone Survivor“. Watch this video of Marcus endorsing the film.

The Range 15 team states, “We’re making the military movie you’ve always wanted someone to make… we’re nine veterans who got out of the military and believe in the American Dream that anything is possible if you work your ass off. Six of us are regular dudes that served in the infantry and special operations.  One of us (Tim Kennedy) fights in the UFC.  Two of us (Dakota Meyer and Leroy Petry) were awarded the Medal of Honor for extraordinary valor.  They also make a fine quiche.”

Click here to donate and make this film the best ever film about the U.S. military by those who honorably served.

gjsdbekxhkxysdrekfj5

Thinking About China

/in , , , /by

Napoleon Bonaparte purportedly said “Let China sleep, for when China wakes, she will shake the world.”

Cover - China ChallengeAs Thomas J. Christensen, the author of his recently published “The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power”, reminds us, “For millennia China was arguably the greatest civilization on the planet and for many previous centuries its most powerful empire.”

China is no longer an empire, but it remains a huge nation geographically and huge in terms of its population.

From the website worldometers.info, we learn:

Christensen is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Currently he is the William P. Boswell Professor of World Politics and director of the China and World Program at Princeton University. After reading his book, you might well conclude that there is little about China and Asia he does not know.

We are mostly dependent on various news stories about China to have any idea what is occurring, but the fact remains that just as the U.S. has its optimists and pessimists, conservatives and liberals who influence policy the same exists for China, so a lot depends on who is being quoted. Generally, though, it is only the top leaders who are. That means we are getting the Chinese “party line” and the occasional general or admiral warning against any aggression.

China did not begin to awaken as a modern nation until after the death of Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, a Communist with a capital “C.” Christensen notes that, while keeping its political ideology, the leader that followed him made a “peaceful transformation launched under CCP leader Deng Xiaopping in 1978 and the collapse of the superpower Soviet Union thirteen years later that made China appear to stand tall again among the great powers.” The transitition was to a capitalist-based economy.

These days the Chinese and the Russians are making efforts to achieve areas of cooperation and, in particular, their militaries. They hold drills together for common defense strategies.

Christensen believes that “China’s return to great power status is perhaps the most important challenges in twenty-first century American diplomacy”, but to put that in context he points out that “China’s per capita income is only one fifth that of the United States” and “though a true trade superpower, many of its exporters are controlled at least in part by foreign investors.”

“Still, the pessimists do not give enough credit to the sustainability of U.S. leadership in Asia,” says Christensen. “For example, they often underestimate the value of American’s unparalleled network of allies and security partners.” You can be sure that the Chinese leadership does not.

They also have, as one would expect, concerns about U.S. military power in their area of the world, but they feel the same about Japan and South Korea as well. “China is not currently an enemy of the United States,” says Christensen, nor is it likely to be for a long time to come.

“It does not need to be contained like the (former) Soviet Union. Nor should China become the kind of regional or global adversary that we have faced in the past, although that outcome, unfortunately, is still a distinct possibility.” That possibility depends on China’s leadership now and in the future. For now they are concentrating on their economy and are likely to do so for many years to come.

Chinese Money“China’s economic clout is real and growing rapidly, especially since the 2008 financial crisis. China has been the main engine of growth for the world’s economy since that time and, by some measures, has become the world’s number one trading state.” There is only one reason why the U.S. has not yet recovered from the financial crisis and his name is Barack Obama.

I suspect that Obama is held in disdain by the Chinese leadership despite all the public handshakes. For one thing, China weathered the financial crisis far better than the U.S. “One of the burdens the new Obama administration inherited in early 2009 was a China bearing a mix of cockiness and insecurity that would negatively influence its policies in 2009-2010,” says Christensen and as the U.S. foundered in Afghanistan and Iraq “American power inspired less awe.”

“Sometime in 2012, the ‘Asia pivot’” of the Obama administration “would be jettisoned in Washington for the more subtle ‘Asia rebalance.’” If you get the feeling that the Obama administration has no real China policy or one that will have little influence, you are right.

With regard to China, It likely does not matter what the Obama administration does for its remaining one and a half years in office.

Various scholars and diplomats will continue to keep a watchful eye on China and most surely many corporate leaders and U.S. entrepreneurs will do so as well given its huge population as a marketplace. It’s already a great tourist destination.

Napoleon was right.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

RELATED ARTICLES:

China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Globalization as Imperialism

“Risk of War”: China Repeatedly Warns U.S. Surveillance Plane Over Artificial Island

The Annual Female Veteran Retreat Is Quietly Approaching — Again by G. Alfano-Cronk

/in , , , /by

Last September, something quietly happened in our area that was not preceded by any big gala, covered in the society pages of our local newspapers, or really had any sort of hoopla connected to it at all.  There were no grant monies garnered for it and certainly none of the big named corporations came forward to volunteer to sponsor this event.  And by the opening day, there were still no anonymous donors who had mailed in donations to make this “great event” happen.  But what did happen; here in our own bustling and robust Sarasota community, was that a group of female veterans stepped up and took action themselves.  They decided that they needed to have their own issues addressed and their concerns shared with other female veterans, and rightfully so.  And so they quietly made it all happen…But will they have to do this again, on their own this year?  Or will you help them flourish?

At this point, you may be asking yourselves what action did these female veterans take and what happened here locally that you possibly missed out on last year.

Last September, “fifteen elite women warriors” came together to share 4 days and 3 nights of intense retreat activities.  Some people may not even know what a retreat is or what the purpose of it is:  A “retreat” is….www.femaleveteransunite.com and it denotes a much different definition than that of a “conference”.

The reason why this retreat was so very rewarding, for all of those in attendance, was that the fifteen female veteran participants ranged in ages from 29 – 92.  We all know that whenever you have a wide age span, in a group of women, you will also have a variety of interesting life experiences that accompanies age.  And that was certainly the case during this retreat.

Our Women Warriors offered each other many suggestions that they found helpful in dealing with their own day to day activities; specifically noting what has worked for them and what has ultimately created distress in their lives.  All of the ladies enjoyed the group interaction, yet everyone expressed their thoughts and feelings with the utmost respect for each other.

So why is this article being written almost 8 months after the first retreat?  Because our community needs to know that our 2nd Annual Female Veteran’s Retreat will happen this year on September 10th through September 13th, at the Day Spring Retreat Center in Parrish.  And this year, we are all hoping that it will not happen quite “as quietly” as it did last year.

WHY?  Because Goodwill/Manasota has come on board as the “Platinum Circle Sponsors” and they are very dedicated to helping our veterans to succeed in our communities.  Our sincerest thanks go out to C.J. Bannister, Heather Hopewell, Mr. Bob Rosinsky, and all of his staff, for coming on board to assist us in making this another successful retreat.  But Goodwill was not the only community organization that reached out to us and wanted to get involved with our female veterans.  We are also privileged to have on board, our very own Southwest Blue Star Mothers, Chapter FL4 and Susan Chandler-Caruso as part of our retreat’s planning committee.   Who better than mothers; who bore our veterans and then nurtured their minds, bodies and souls, would understand what makes their own sons and/or daughters tick?  These are our role models (mothers) who have filled each veteran’s hearts with enough “ love & patriotism” to make them want to take an oath to serve this Country.

Who, but mothers; would know the real trials and tribulations that their child (a military veteran) faces on a daily basis?  These dear women have committed to being our “Gold Circle Sponsors.” They know how very overwhelming the transitioning process can be for a veteran, (moving from military life back into the civilian world), and they are making themselves available to help us out in any way that they can.

We are hoping that you too will show your support for the well being of our Women Warriors…Please take this opportunity to sponsor a female veteran or to make a donation to support this retreat. The cost to sponsor one female veteran is $400.00, but any amount of money will be gladly accepted, to include marketing merchandise to be placed in each one of the ladies’ tote bags.  The $400.00 fee covers all of the retreat costs, per veteran, for this wonderful 4 day and 3 night event.

The Home Depot store, on Cattleman Road, will have their Assistant Support Department Supervisor, (female veteran Ms. Patty Maybray) hosting another “project night” for the women. Ms. Maybray will supervise and instruct the veterans with a DIY project that is worked on simultaneously while the women engage in group discussion on a specific topic.  At the completion of this session, each veteran will get to take home a beautifully completed project, compliments of Home Depot.

Dr. Marguerite Barnett (Owner of the Mandala Med Spa, a local reconstructive surgeon, and herself a female veteran) will facilitate a segment of the retreat on “self-esteem” and then she will demonstrate and teach the ladies a form of powerful self-expression through dance!

The Committee knows that it has made a great difference in the lives of the 15 female veterans who attended last year’s retreat, and hopefully it will do the same for 25 more women warriors this year.

Georgie Alfano-Cronk (Retreat Coordinator) and Rebecca Ludwick (Retired Army Lt.) says that “There is a great degree of confidentiality that must be maintained during the course of our retreat activities, but the ladies are allowing us to share with you the comments that they provided us with on their final surveys.  The comments ranged from, “I felt very special because I actually took ME time in order to address just MY needs”.  “I cannot believe that there are other women who went through the exact same stuff as I did”. “I have been living in a hell for over 20 years and the VA just doesn’t seem to have the proper staff to deal with my problems”.  “No woman should have to have her body abused and violated in order to serve her country or anywhere else”.  And the less emotionally charged comments were… “It gave me time to get away from the daily routines of life”.  “I loved the comradery of my sisters”.  “We need to make this retreat a National one for women veterans”.  “Can we do this more frequently”?

women veterans

Our youngest veteran (29) and our oldest veteran (92) in attendance at last year’s retreat.

When our military female veterans speak out, we need to ask each one of you; who is really listening to them?  Who would (or should) care more about a female veteran than another female veteran?  And that is why we, (the Sarasota County Women’s Veteran Committee), decided that; FEMALE VETERANS NEED TO HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD TOO and that is exactly what we advocate for our Women Warriors to do!  Speak out and feel no shame!

During our retreat time, we will spend countless hours together in a group setting, supporting each other as we discuss topics such as: military sexual trauma (MST), traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress (PTS), how does one navigate the VA health care system, where can jobs be found, how important is furthering one’s education, how does one acquire balance in their lives, how to manage anger and depression, and how to have more healthy relationships.

One of the platforms that we utilize for many of our discussions is provided to us by NO MORE.ORG.  If you are not aware of this wonderful organization, please check them out.  Our military veterans have gotten on board with them to say, “We will tolerate No More sexual assaults.  No More domestic violence.

So during those three days in September (the 10-13th), please remember to pray (or to just think) of our women warriors.  Our mission is to continue to flourish in our civilian lives.  We want to grow ever more confident and remain focused enough so that we may continue to be devoted parents, caregivers, lovers and friends.  But we  would also like to stress, that whenever you see a couple at a military function, please “do not assume” that it was the man who took the oath to serve his Country.  Ask the woman, “By any chance, did you serve in the military”?  And don’t be surprised when she answers, “Yes, I did”.

Donations are now being accepted for this retreat.  Please send your check to: Goodwill – Manasota, P.O. Box 5403, Sarasota, FL 34277-5403 and every donation is tax deductible.  There is also a Go Fund Me page for donations at: http://www.gofundme.com/female-vet-retreat. The Women’s Veteran Committee may be reached at:  femaleveteransunite@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns.  And to be considered for this 2nd Annual Female Veteran Retreat, please go to our website:  www.femaleveteransunite.com, fill out an application and mail it back into us prior to July 31st.

Thank you and God bless our veterans who have sacrificed so very much for our country.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ms. Georgie Alfano-Cronk is the Chairwoman of the Women’s Veteran Committee for the Sarasota County Veterans Commission.  She was Sarasota County’s 2010 Female Veteran of the Year and is an advocate for ALL of our female veterans. Georgie will also be one of 4 veterans who will be honored at the JFCS Tribute Luncheon for Military Veterans on May 29th, 2015, at Michael’s On East.

The Greatest U.S. National Security Threat: A Godless Military

/in , , , , /by

In May 2014 I wrote about the U.S. military being trained to be Godless. I wrote, “It appears God has been removed from the soldier, Godlessness is becoming the norm.”

Today a U.S. military survey bears out what I said then.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council in a column titled A Morale Dilemma writes:

The slogan used to be “An Army of one.” And if the military isn’t careful, that’s exactly what they’ll have. America’s soldiers are more disgruntled than ever, a new report in a depressing string of outcomes shows. Of the branch’s 777,000 soldiers more than half (52 percent) are unhappy — or worse, “rarely count(ing) on good things happening” to them. Almost as many — 48 percent — explain that what was once one of the most rewarding jobs on the planet is now anything but.

Dissatisfied and disrespected, hundreds of thousands of soldiers say their commitment is waning. The warning signs have been there all along, but only recently have the surveys started to confirm what most long suspected: that this administration’s radical policies are having a catastrophic effect on the troops. Only 28 percent of the Army and National Guard feel good about what they do — a low-water mark for one of the nation’s proudest traditions: military service. Two-thirds, USA Today reports, are “borderline or worse for an area called ‘catastrophic thinking'” — despite six years of an “optimism program” meant to make soldiers resilient. At $287 million, the campaign has been a dismal failure.

Like most of the Pentagon’s fixes, this one can’t seem to overcome the toxic environment created by the President’s attacks on faith, values, and brotherhood. The Army’s “positive psychology” never had a chance in a culture of non-stop sexual engineering and foreign policy incompetence. Not to mention that this “optimism program” doesn’t compete with the original one — and that’s faith! Why not save a quarter of a billion dollars and stop discouraging a source of real positivity: religion?

This is not a new issue.

In the July 2000 Journal of Military History column Character Education in the U.S. Army, 1947-1977, Anne C. Loveland wrote,  “In 1947, amidst great fanfare, the US Army activated and experimental unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky, made up of 664 young men between the ages of 17 and 20 (average age 17 1/2). Since the autumn of 1945, the Truman Administration had been pressing Congress to institute universal military training (UMT), and the Fort Know unit was set up to demonstrate the kind of instruction it would involve… But the most publicized aspect of the experiment was the program of moral, religious, and citizenship instruction administered by three chaplains who delivered fifty-minute lectures on such subjects as ‘The Ten Commandments,’ ‘Grounds for Moral Conduct,’ ‘Purity in Thought, Word and Deed,’ ‘Marriage as a Sacred Institution,’ The Citizen and Morality,’ and ‘Citizen and Honesty’.”

“The program developed for the Fort Knox experimental unit and subsequently expanded to the Army as a whole emphasized three inter-dependent components: religion, character building, and citizenship,” notes Loveland. “Army publications explicitly stated the religious basis of Character guidance, pointed out that the principles the chaplains taught came from God. A lecture entitled ‘Natural Law’ and ‘Moral Law’ concluded with the declaration that ‘our chief responsibly as moral beings is toward God.”

Over time Loveland reports that there was push back against character and morals training by unit commanders, who wanted the time spent on unit training.

Loveland writes, “Whatever the reason for it, it is clear that chaplain disaffection played as important a role as command resistance in undermining character education in the 1970s. In 1977, the Army officially discontinued the already moribund Human Self Development program [which replaced moral and character programs]. Thus ended the Army’s thirty-year experiment in character education.”

Loveland concludes, “If the concern with national preparedness in the 1940s impelled Army leaders to institute character education, the decision to end the draft in 1973 hastened the demise of the program. In the early 1970s, when Army leaders began planning implementation of the all-volunteer force, they decided to deemphasize the existing character education program. With public approval of the draft no longer a concern, they sidelined a program designed to inculcate personal and civic values in an army of citizen-soldiers, relying instead on a revitalized military ethic to teach the values and behavior of professional soldiers.”

We now have a military without character. An immoral perhaps Godless military. 

History repeats itself. We have seen and fought against army’s without character in WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Sadly, the U.S. Military has morphed into a “professional force” without character. As President Harry Truman wrote, “[T]he spiritual and moral health of the Armed Forces is a vital element in our national security.” 

Our national security is threatened by our post-draft, post-modern and Godless military.

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Plan Would Let Transgender People Serve Openly in Military

Defense Secretary: 10,400 Male Troops Subjected to ‘Unwanted Sexual Contact’ Last Year

U.S. Military Hostile to Christians Under Obama; Morale, Retention Devastated [+Video]

Sex, Drugs, and Dead Soldiers: What U.S. Africa Command Doesn’t Want You to Know

Reining In Soldiers of Fortune – New York Times

Obama’s Agents of Scandal

Governor Rick Scott investigating possible Marshal Law drills in Fort Lauderdale

/in , , /by

I spoke to the Governor of Florida in regards to the military special forces operations folks rounding up civilians in Fort Lauderdale as a training exercise with support from the Fort Lauderdale Police Dept. I don’t take too kindly to black hawk helicopters scaring civilians flying over their homes in the middle of the night. Definitely a Marshal Law drill I don’t care how you draw this picture.

The video below shows armed troops arresting “crisis actors” on the street. Black Hawk helicopters are also seen flying in-between the buildings.

I told the Fort Lauderdale Police Department the blow back was coming, its now going to hit the fan. I just turned on the fan. I also spoke to my friends in the CIA and they said this exercise was definitely not good in regards to the good order of the city and the constitutional ramifications.

A full scale investigation is now underway by Governor Scott and I am working with folks from Tallahassee taking statements. One does not invade a city and scare citizens even under role playing controlled conditions and not answer to it. We have military bases for the military to train on. Been there done that.

People just don’t pay me any heed then BAM, I bring a hammer down. Politicians you best wake up and pay attention. We the people are watching and there are more of us than you.

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

/in , , , /by

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

/in , , , , /by

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 /by

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

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , /by

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]

/in , , , , /by

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.