Our modern-day version of WWII-era U.S. military recruitment propaganda.
The most inaccurate component of a rifle is the human behind the trigger, but starting Wednesday hunters can turn to drone-inspired vision for a little help. Provided they have $22,000 on hand for a new rifle, that is.
May 18, 2013
“CNN” quoted security sources that said the US developed several plans, including military action against the attackers on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi in September last year.
The sources, who asked not to be identified, said U.S. forces made plans aimed at the arrest of the attackers on the U.S. consulate, through a variety of actions, including the transfer of U.S. ground forces into Libya to perform the operation.
Military terms. =) These are not mine, someone had it on facebook and I told my AIRMAN daughter I’d post it here, no offence to anyone, I LOVE ALL Branches! BTW, for the Navy/Marines instead of PX it should read NEX! =P
There is no humor like military humor. And there is no military humor like that that ribs the other branches.
I can’t stop laughing at Vanilla Latte… HELP ME D:
They had me at Powder Room, lol
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: “Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military.” He says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Yeah, that’s worked out so well for police. They practically hate that document. They enforce whatever law is written, regardless if it contradicts an amendment. We’ve heard them say “I’m just doing my job”.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”
As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”
“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”
The Air Force says it carefully sorted through 83 military bases around the country before deciding where to assign a coveted prize, the first Air National Guard squadron of F-35s, the next fighter jet in America’s arsenal.
In the end, it picked Vermont for the honor, home state of one of the National Guard’s most powerful political allies in Washington, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy.
But state pride in the award to the “Green Mountain Boys,’’ as the Vermont Air National Guard calls itself, has been clouded by the Air Force’s failure to fully take into account the thunderous noise the F-35s would generate in densely populated communities around its base at Burlington International Airport.
That failure and other flaws in its selection process are raising questions about whether the Air Force deliberately sought to reward a key friend in Congress with a squadron of advanced fighter jets for his state, and whether residents near the airfield might fall victim to Washington’s system of political spoils.
Projected sound levels around the airport are so high with the F-35s that local officials predict several thousand nearby homes would fall within a zone designated “incompatible for residential use,’’ negatively affecting the lives and property values of as many as 7,000 citizens.
A Globe examination of records, and interviews with Pentagon officials directly involved with the review, show the Air Force — in selecting Vermont over competing locations — relied on inaccurate, excessively low estimates of the impact of the jet blast on the local population.
One of the Pentagon officials said in an interview that the lengthy base-selection process was deliberately “fudged’’ by military brass so that Leahy’s home state would win.
“Unfortunately Burlington was selected even before the scoring process began,” said the official, who asked that he not to be identified for fear of reprisals from his superiors. “I wish it wasn’t true, but unfortunately that is the way it is. The numbers were fudged for Burlington to come out on top. If the scoring had been done correctly Burlington would not have been rated higher.”
Leahy, in an e-mailed statement, reiterated his support for the planes but did not respond to allegations of political influence. The Air Force denied the fix was in for Vermont, even though it now says it is reassessing residential impacts and other factors using updated information — a review that could end in a reversal of its preliminary decision.
U.S. Navy leaders were warned last year that a $37 billion program to build Littoral Combat Ships can’t meet its promised mission because the vessels are too lightly manned and armed, according to a confidential report.
“This review highlights the gap between ship capabilities and the missions the Navy will need LCS to execute,” said the report prepared last year for the Navy by Rear Admiral Samuel Perez. “Failure to adequately address LCS requirements and capabilities will result in a large number of ships that are ill-suited to execute” regional commanders’ warfighting needs.
The 36-page report obtained by Bloomberg News is at odds with assurances from Navy leaders that their project is on course to deliver a small, speedy and adaptable ship intended to patrol waters close to shore.
The review, requested by Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, echoes findings by critics inside the Pentagon who deride the vessel. The report, stamped “confidential draft,” found that the plans to swap equipment needed for different missions are impractical, the vessel’s width may prevent it from docking in some ports, and the decision to proceed with two versions complicates logistics and maintenance.
A steel-hulled version of the vessel is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by a team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), and an aluminum trimaran is being built in Mobile, Alabama, by a group led by Austal Ltd. (ASB)
Once viewed as an obscure and even nerdy pursuit, cyber is now seen as one of the hottest fields in warfare — “a great career field in the future,” said Ryan Zacher, a junior at the Air Force Academy outside Colorado Springs, Colo., who switched from aeronautical engineering to computer science.
Last year the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., began requiring freshmen to take a semester on cybersecurity, and it is adding a second required cyber course for juniors next year.
The school offered a major in cyber operations for the first time this year to the freshman class, and 33 midshipmen, or about 3 percent of the freshmen, signed up for it. Another 79 are majoring in computer engineering, information technology or computer science, bringing majors with a computer emphasis to about 10 percent of the class.
“There’s a great deal of interest, much more than we could possibly, initially, entertain,” said the academy’s superintendent, Vice Adm. Michael Miller.
» via Yahoo! News
Posted 1 min ago by
I have family and friends that have been in law enforcement or still are. When they took their oath of office, they all swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of their city, state and nation. When anyone joins the military, they take a similar oath to protect the country and uphold the Constitution.
There is another thing that all of those oaths of office have in common. The section about protecting the country and Constitution says that they will protect against foreign and domestic threats. Our Founding Fathers and the people that established our military and various law enforcement agencies knew back then that we may face threats to our way of life from within the country as well as from without. Domestic threats have always been a real possibility.
Today, it is more than a possibility, it has become a reality. State and federal governments are the ones posing the domestic threats to the US Constitution and laws of the land. All of the attacks being made at the state and federal level against the Second Amendment are, by definition, domestic threats to the US Constitution and as such could be considered to be acts of treason.
So what do law enforcement officers and military personnel do in this situation? They have all sworn an oath to protect the Constitution. Do they stand by that oath and defy state and federal government officials by not enforcing these unconstitutional laws? Do they face being fired or court martialed for defending the Constitution? These are the tough choices that many will soon be faced with. Listen to this powerful video about them having to make this decision:
The question is easier for county sheriffs because the US Supreme Court has already ruled that they are the supreme law enforcement officers in their jurisdiction, even over federal agencies. Many county sheriffs have already signed letters and told their citizens that they will not enforce any federal gun control law that they believe to be unconstitutional.
But what about city and state cops? What are they going to do? For instance, in Colorado, they recently passed a whole barrage of unconstitutional gun control laws. Do city and state police enforce those laws or do they defend the state and federal Constitution?
This is surely a difficult and troubling time to be in law enforcement or the military. Careers are sure to be ruined by the decisions these men and women are about to make. If their careers are not ruined, then their personal values and duty to country will surely be compromised and they will have to live knowing it.
Years ago, I applied for the city police department back home. I passed the written and physical test and was waiting to hear if I would be accepted to attend the training academy. Then I got a call telling me that they discovered that my eyesight without my glasses was just over the allowable qualifications and I was rejected. Had I been accepted and became a police officer, I know that I would choose to defend the US Constitution over the anti-constitutional gun control laws being passed. Even though it could mean my career and retirement, I believe it’s more important to stand for the Constitution. If not, then the Constitution will inevitably be replaced by something far inferior and totally un-American.
What would you do? What do you want your local and state police to do? What do you expect military men and women to do? The last time they were faced with a situation like this, it resulted in the American Civil War. Are we on the verge of a second one?
The Pentagon seeks more money to pay for cyber-attack capabilities.Remember: They’ve been
conditioning us for normalcy“warning” us about cyber-terror for about a year now. Panetta once went so far as to call it a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” Security “pros have predicted” a major cyber attack.McAfee even warned about Project Blitzkrieg, a supposed devastating banking infrastructure attack:
Don’t forget that Obama handed the authority to regulate cybersecurity IDs over to the Department of Commerce.
Christians to be Court Martialed for expressing their faith (May 01, 2013) (by SignsofThyComing)
That there have been those who oppose Christianity in all its forms and expressions at any time anywhere isn’t new. Those are personalities like Mikey Weinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, who recently said, “We face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
The fact the military is listening to him is new.
- Windows 8 Driver DownloadWindows 8 Drivers Latest Download. Microsoft Certified. (Recommended) www.Windows-8.DriverUpdate.net
- Do You Carry Concealed?Join the US Concealed Carry Assoc for the Latest CCW News & Articles! USConcealedCarry.net
That was confirmed in a report by Fox News’ Todd Starnes, who said Weinstein “and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23.”
“He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary…” Starnes reported.
And the military seems to be listening, he noted, based on a statements obtained from Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense. … Court martials (sic) and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases.”
“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein told Fox. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”
The Washington-based Family Research Council, which recently came under the gunfire of a leftist who said his goal was to kill as many people as he could, said the situation simply doesn’t make any sense.
“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” asked FRC chief Tony Perkins in a Fox interview. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”
Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who retired from the military and now is vice president at FRC, said, “If this policy goes forward, Christians within the military who speak of their faith could now be prosecuted as enemies of the state. This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military.”
He said, “Our brave troops deserve better. If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is no religious freedom in the military.”
The organization has launched a petition to the Pentagon to scrub plans to censor religious beliefs.
The FRC petition states, “Our brave troops deserve better. Subverting the religious freedom of our troops both hurts the morale of our troops and puts our nation at risk by labeling courageous military personnel as enemies.”
“I urge you to resist the demands of anti-Christian activists who are calling for a court-martial order upon chaplains and service members who share their faith,” it says.
Tens of thousands of Americans already have joined the effort, which was brought about, according to the FRC, because of claims that “religion is one of the chief problems plaguing our troops. … [with] some saying that ‘religious proselytizing’ is at the top of the list of problems in the armed forces – even on par with sexual assault.”
The FRC noted the Washington Post reported that the Air Force had created a document “with the directive that leaders of all levels (including chaplains) may not ‘promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.’”
Ron Crews, of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, told Starnes, “Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children. I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech.”
However, Weinstein told the Washington Post that such conversation actually is a national security threat and “sedition and treason.”
Ken Klukowski, a senior fellow for religious liberty at FRC, wrote online:
“He [Weinstein] cites Dr. James Dobson – the famous Christian founder of Focus on the Family – as ‘illustrating the extremist, militant nature of these virulently homophobic organizations’ rhetorically charged propaganda.’ Regarding those who teach orthodox Christian beliefs from the Bible, Weinstein concludes, ‘Let’s call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.’”
Kulkowski continued, “Weinstein then endorses the ultra-left Southern Poverty Law Center, who publishes a list of ‘hate groups. Alongside truly deplorable organizations like the KKK, the SPLC’s list includes a host of traditional Christian organizations…”
In fact, it was the SPLC that was identified by Floyd Lee Corkins II, the confessed terrorist who attacked the FRC, as his source of information about which group to attack.
WND reported on that case earlier.
Corkins now has entered a plea of guilty to a charge of domestic terrorism, and during an interview with the FBI fingered the leftist SPLC for describing publicly the FRC as a “hate” group, and listing it that way on the Internet.
The video reveals Corkins entering the building and approaching Johnson, then leaning over to place his backpack on the floor. When he straightens up, Corkins points a handgun – a loaded semi-automatic – directly at Johnson and fires.
Despite being wounded in the arm, Johnson is able to subdue Corkins after a brief struggle.
It is during an interview with FBI officers later when Corkins fingers the SPLC for his inspiration.
Asked by the FBI how he picked the FRC to attack, Corkins states, “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”
The FRC reports when Corkins later pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic terrorism, the SPLC “was connected in federal court in this first domestic terrorism conviction in Washington, D.C., under the post 9/11 law.”
“Floyd Corkins admitted his intention to ‘kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face,” the FRC explained. “The Southern Poverty Law Center has thus far refused to remove Family Research Council as a ‘hate group’ from its target map.”
See “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” which reveals the threat that is hidden in plain sight for Americans.
Among the counts to which Corkins has pleaded guilty is an “Act of [Domestic] Terrorism while Armed.”
During an FBI interview of Corkins after he was taken into custody, an agent asked Corkins, “What was your intention … You’re … a political activist you said?”
Corkins responded: “Yeah, I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chicken-fil-A sandwich on their face.”
FBI: “And you, what was your intention when you went in there with the gun?”
Corkins: “Uh, it was to kill as many people as I could.”
The significance of the Chick-fil-A sandwiches Corkins bought and brought to FRC was that the owner of the restaurant chain was under fire last summer from homosexual activists for stating his support for the morality of traditional marriage.
That the U.S. government previously has utilized the opinions endorsed by the SPLC is evidenced in a number of ways, including the fact that the U.S. Army Reserve recently was found to be using a training brief that slams Catholics and evangelical Christians.
Members of Congress were outraged.
“Our nation needs to have an honest conversation about religious extremism and what we can do to avoid religious violence. However, labeling these major world religions as extremists is wrong and hurtful,” said a letter by Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., that was signed by dozens of other members.
It was addressed to Army Secretary John. M . McHugh at the Pentagon.
“We call on you to rescind this briefing and set the record straight on the Army’s view on these faith groups by providing a balanced briefing on religious extremism,” the letter said.
Very good point.
The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.
(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians—including chaplains—sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)
Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.
So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime—possibly resulting in imprisonment—for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)—whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.
This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.
In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:
It’s a matter of what do they mean by “proselytizing.” …I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”
FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 30,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.
**UPDATE**
The FRC petition has now exceeded more than 40,000 signatures at the time of this update.
Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty with the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.
