Category Archives: Military Preparedness

Relabeling

Posted on by

What is relabeling? It means to change your outward appearance to more accurately reflect your organizations goals and purpose. That has lead to today’s leading story. The question you must ask yourselves, “Is this true? Or, is it about to be true?”

Headline from somewhere on the Internet…

Democrat Party to Relabel Itself

June 31st, 2015
OldDemSymbol

Old DNC Symbol

The DNC announced today that is was discontinuing the use of its century old icon, the Donkey, as its political symbol. After a complaint from PETA claiming the symbol was unfair to depict the party as a “beast of burden,” and after the party agreed that the symbol was inappropriate since many of its members haven’t held jobs nor worked for generations, the DNC announced it was adopting a new symbol more in line with its half century history and political goals.

NewDNCsymbol

New DNC LOGO

AltNewDNCSymbol

Alternate DNC LOGO for official vehicles

The DNC said the new symbol was adopted from the organization that has been closely aligned with the DNC since the 1960s, supporting the party and financing some leading democrat leaders. The DNC said it was finally time to openly display their aims and goals with their new symbol. The DNC included an alternate symbol in their announcement suitable for banners and bumper stickers, especially for official party vehicles.

Party leaders, activists across the the country and academia applauded the announcement.

Yes, I’m feeling snarky this morning.

***

Is the US and NATO acting to blunt Putin’s aggression? He thinks so. NATO troops and armored forces entered Poland for a well publicized military exercise. It is to be a show of force against Putin’s aggression in Crimea and the Ukraine.

Putin is not amused and threatened retaliation. The Cold War has returned at a time when Obama is desperate to have a legacy, any legacy, now that his major accomplishment, Obamacare, may be crippled if the Supreme Court blocks federal subsidies for Obamacare recipients. One pundit said, “You can end communism in Russia, but you can’t remove the KGB from the Russian.” The Russian in this case is Putin. He has reverted to his previous KGB mentality.

The NATO exercise is not impressing the world’s military organizations. NATO has relied too long on the US for their security. NATO and the EU has sacrificed their militaries to feed their socialist states. Now, when the Cold War has resumed and with the US military resources still tied to the Mideast, NATO is barely able to field any forces to repel Putin if he invades the rest of the Ukraine…and perhaps the former EastBloc countries.

Even if the US was not sill involved in the Mideast, the US has reduced it’s military to a century-old level. The US Navy has fewer ships than it did prior to World War I. Much of the US war stocks, built up in Europe during the earlier cold war, has been expended during Gulf Wars I and II. With the military reductions imposed by Obama and the democrats, those war stocks have not been replenished. In some cases during military actions in Iraq and elsewhere, the US Navy ran out of cruise and land attack missiles.

Those miliary stocks have been slowly replaced. If at all. Some of the tooling needed to build more missiles was destroyed by DoD orders when the contracts expired. Now, when more missiles are needed, those tools are gone and it will be expensive to remake them.

But Putin isn’t the only aggressor on the horizon, The PRC, Communist China to everyone but the socialists around the world, is building a military base in the territory claimed by several other nations.

China builds new island military bases in South China Sea

Posted: May 20, 2015 8:06 PM CDT Updated: May 27, 2015 8:06 PM CDT
 
The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

The new islands have been called unsinkable aircraft carriers. (Source: CNN)

SOUTH CHINA SEA (CNN) – It’s a tense confrontation between China’s military and an American spy plane monitoring disturbing developments in disputed waters hundreds of miles off the Chinese coast.

China’s activity in the South China Sea has peaked the interest of the U.S. military.

“Foreign military aircraft. This is the Chinese Navy. You are approaching our military alert zone.”

High above the South China Sea, the radio crackles with a stern warning.

“You go!”

The source of dispute appears on the horizon, seemingly out of nowhere.

Islands, manmade by China, located hundreds of miles from its coastline.

CNN got exclusive access to classified U.S. surveillance flights over the islands.

The first time journalists have been allowed on the operational mission by the state of the art P-8 Poseidon, America’s most advance surveillance and sub-hunting aircraft.

Three islands are the target of the mission. It’s the three islands that have been the focus of China’s building in the South China Sea over recent years.

China’s alarming creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is one part of a broader military push that some fear is to push U.S. dominance in the region.

Sailing its first aircraft carrier, equipping its nuclear missions with multiple warheads, developing missiles to destroy aircraft carriers, and now building military bases far from its shores.

For the U.S., the islands are a step too far. And the flight is a part of a new and old American military response that may soon include sailing U.S. warships close by as well.

In just two years, China has expanded the islands by 2,000 acres. The equivalent of 1,500 football fields and counting, an engineering marvel in waters as deep as 300 feet.

An American commander talks about what he sees.

“It appears to be a buildup of military infrastructure and not to mention we were just challenged probably 30 minutes ago and the challenge came from the Chinese Navy. And I’m highly confident that it came from a shore on this facility,” said Capt. Mike Parker, commander in the U.S. Navy.

What used to be the fiery cross reef now has early warning radar and an airport tower and a runway long enough to handle every aircraft in the Chinese military.

Some are calling it China’s unsinkable aircraft carrier.

The videos of the island taken from the P-8 advanced surveillance cameras never before declassified.

In a sign of just how valuable that China views them, the new islands are already well protected.

“There’s obviously a lot of surface traffic down there… uhh… Chinese warships and Chinese coast guard ships,” said Lt. Commander Matt Newman, mission commander in the U.S. Navy.

And there is proof. The Chinese navy ordering the P-8 out of the airspace not one, not twice, but eight times on the mission.

“This is the Chinese Navy. This is the Chinese Navy. Please go away quickly.”

And like the surveillance video, the audio of these warnings never before shared with the public.

What is interesting is there are also civilian aircrafts, there was a Delta flight on that same frequency. And when it heard that challenge it piped into the frequency to say what’s going on?

The Chinese Navy then reassuring them but as the flight crew says that can be a very nerve wracking experience for civilian aircraft in the area.

And the more China builds the more frequently and aggressively it warns away U.S. aircraft.

The crucial issue facing American voters in the coming national election is who to choose to lead us in the coming troubled times? Some of the candidates are isolationists, although they refuse to acknowledge the label. If a military confrontation occurs in the Ukraine or in the South China Sea, will our next President refuse to act, claiming it is not our business, or will he defend our allies and national security?

As much as some libertarians deny the fact, we cannot sit isolated from the world. We are dependent on allies and, if we are to have allies, they must be able to depend on us. The US and India has entered into talks discussing areas of mutual interest…the South China Sea, being one. India has a common border with China and has had military border disputes with China before.

When we choose a new President, we must chose one who is unafraid to remain involved in the world because the world will not be afraid to be involved in us.

Facebook

Words for Wednesday

Posted on by

Somedays it is hard to write a post. The difficulty is caused by a number of reasons, repetitive news cycles, ignorance of the MSM and in many areas the ignorance and apathy of the public. At other times, a lack of motivation or time conflicts conspire to push me to not post.

Today is one such day.

Be that as it may, today’s lead item is about stupidity. John Boehner’s bartender—a man who has been Boehner’s bartender for over five years, is accused of plotting to poison the Representative from Ohio.

The bartender must be an astoundingly poor planner. He had opportunities to shuffle off Boehner’s mortal coil for five years…but he just couldn’t get his act together.

When I read the article, it triggered my disbelief tripwire. After a facing mutiny in the GOP ranks, Boehner and the FBI reveal this incompetent. It just seems to be a misdirection ploy to get some positive media for Boehner. I wonder how many American have trouble with this news item?

***

Guns and Taxes

From WMSA.NET…

From the PoliticMO Newsletter for January 14, 2015.

GUNS — ‘Gun groups vow to fight Missouri lawmaker’s bill taxing guns to pay for police body cameras,’ Raw Story: “A Missouri state legislator has drawn criticism from gun enthusiasts for introducing bills that would pay for body cameras for police officers through a tax increase on firearm and ammunition sales… House Bills 75 and 76, which were introduced by state Rep. Brandon Ellington (D), would implement a 1 percent tax raise on gun sales, with the money going to the “Peace Officer Handgun and Ammunition Sales Tax Fund,” to be used to buy the cameras. Officers would then be required to wear the cameras during any interaction with the public, and keep the footage in their records for at least 30 days. Undercover officers and detectives would be exempt from wearing the cameras. …

“The National Rifle Association (NRA) has already come out against Ellington’s proposal. ‘Forcing law-abiding Missourians to pay an additional tax on firearm and ammunition purchases is unmerited. Gun owners and purchasers should not be responsible for funding these projects,’ the group said in a release. ‘The NRA will continue to fight against such misguided encroachments on those who exercise their Second Amendment rights.’” — PoliticMO Newsletter, Jan 14, 2015

We continually hit with taxes and more taxes. A new tax to one thing or another, another hand in our pocket stealing our money under the guise of law. Every tax has some benefit, we’re told. I just don’t believe it. We don’t need a new tax to fund body cameras now, especially one that taxes guns and ammunition.

***

The rank and file of our military do not like Obama. Who’da thunk it?

AMERICA’S MILITARY: A conservative institution’s uneasy cultural evolution

The force is changing — often reluctantly — alongside the civilian society it serves

In his first term, President Obama oversaw repeal of the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Then he broke with one of the military’s most deeply rooted traditions and vowed to lift the ban on women serving in combat.

And the commander in chief has aggressively sought to change military culture by cracking down on sexual assault and sexual harassment, problems that for years were underreported or overlooked.

Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform. Yet his two-term administration is etching a deep imprint on the culture inside the armed forces. As commander in chief, he will leave behind a legacy that will shape the Pentagon’s personnel policies and the social customs of rank-and-file troops for decades to come.

Go visit the Military Times and read the complete article. It confirms the opinions of many now serving and some fears as well.

Facebook

What could you do?

Posted on by

South Kansas City was aroused yesterday afternoon to the sound of sirens, police and ambulances. In an upper-middle class neighborhood, five people were shot, three fatally in the quiet of the afternoon. The shootings occurred, if I understood the reports correctly, in five different homes. The five people were victims of a single invader, so we’re told.

It is a tragedy and it leads to a number of questions.

  1. Could it happen here, where I live? Yes, it could. No neighborhood nor home is invulnerable.
  2. Can the police protect me? No. I have no doubt the police desperately wish they could but there aren’t enough to post a cop in every home. The old adage, “When seconds count, the cops are minutes away,” is still true. I live only a few hundred yards from the police station and it would STILL take minutes to reach my home.
  3. I don’t like guns, isn’t a phone call to 911 sufficient? No, see #2 above. First, you must have your phone on you, second you must dial 911…and wait for them to answer, and third, you must be calm enough to tell them what is happening. Few people, in a personal emergency, can do all that in the few seconds they have.
  4. I have a gun in the house, that should be enough. No, it isn’t. Do you know where it is? How quickly can you get it in your hands? Is it loaded? Many families with small children won’t keep loaded weapons easily on hand. Is it in a safe? Can you open the safe in a few seconds, absolutely in less than a minute?
  5. Well, what can I do? Carry a weapon and either keep it within arms reach or on your person at all time. Practice with it, get training in how to defend yourself and how to use your weapon, practice until you needn’t have to think in an emergency, you react.

I hear so many women claim, “I couldn’t shoot anyone!” Stop and think of the consequences. Could/would you shoot someone to protect your children? Your husband or family?

Some men say the same, with all the usual responses. The actual answer for both men and women is that you will do whatever is necessary to protect your family and yourself—or you and they will die.

It’s a harsh statement but that doesn’t change the reality. The world is not safe. It has never been and never will be. We can prepare ourselves for the reality. We can train, teach our family to prepare and train them how to defend themselves and others even if it is nothing more than to train your children to flee and seek protection. Know your neighbors, communicate with them, ask if your neighbor will watch out for you, your children and family, watch your home when you’re away and be a place of shelter if necessary.

I carry a weapon. It is something I put on when I dress in the morning, and it is next to me on the nightstand when I go to bed at night. If someone breaks in to my home, I have a weapon within reach in seconds. I am determined I will protect myself and my family. So can you. You needn’t be a victim waiting to be found.

If one of those five victims had a weapon close at hand and knew how to use it, perhaps one or more of the others would have remained unharmed. More and more police chiefs and sheriffs are admitting they are powerless to protect anyone. The first responder for your personal defense is you.

***

I wrote an article a week or so ago about the parallels with current events in the Ukraine and China to those just prior to WW2. Obama, like the bungling Chamberlain, is placing the United States into harm’s way and our military is woefully unprepared, undermanned, undertrained and underequipted. The democrats/liberals/socialists have been all too successful in emasculating the US armed forces.

Obama Authorizes Sending Additional Troops To Iraq

Posted: Updated:

President Barack Obama has authorized a State Department request for additional troops in Iraq.

Obama ordered approximately 350 additional military personnel be sent to Iraq “to protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel in Baghdad,” according to a Tuesday statement from the office of the White House press secretary. The statement notes that the troops will not be serving in a combat role upon arrival.

The Defense Department confirmed that 405 troops will be deployed to Iraq, allowing for 55 military personnel who have been in Iraq since June to redeploy outside of the country and resulting in a net increase of 350 troops on the ground.

“This action was taken at the recommendation of the Department of Defense after an extensive interagency review, and is part of the President’s commitment to protect our personnel and facilities in Iraq as we continue to support the Government of Iraq in its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” according to the White House statement.

The numbers being sent are too few to be effective. In reality, all they can be…are targets. There are few good troops in the Middle-east. None of them are in Iraq.

But Obama isn’t placing our troops in harm’s way only in Iraq, he’s sending them to the Ukraine as well.

U.S., allies to stage exercises in West Ukraine as battles rage in East

By Peter Apps. WASHINGTON Tue Sep 2, 2014 1:41pm EDT

(Reuters) – As fighting between the army and Russian-backed rebels rages in eastern Ukraine, preparations are under way near its western border for a joint military exercise this month with more than 1,000 troops from the United States and its allies.

The decision to go ahead with the Rapid Trident exercise Sept. 16-26 is seen as a sign of the commitment of NATO states to support non-NATO member Ukraine while stopping well short of military intervention in the conflict.

The annual exercise, to take place in the Yavoriv training center near Ukraine’s border with Poland, was initially scheduled for July, but was put back because early planning was disrupted by the crisis in the eastern part of the country.

“At the moment, we are still planning for (the exercise) to go ahead,” U.S. Navy Captain Gregory Hicks, spokesman for the U.S. Army’s European Command said on Tuesday.

NATO stepped up military activity in its eastern member states after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March, and is expected to agree at a summit in Wales this week to create a new rapid reaction force of several thousand troops.

In addition to staging air force exercises, the United States is moving tanks and 600 troops to Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for joint maneuvers in October, replacing a more lightly armed force of paratroopers.

But Rapid Trident will entail the first significant deployment of U.S. and other personnel to Ukraine since the crisis erupted.

President Barack Obama will visit Estonia on Wednesday to reassure the former Soviet Baltic states of U.S. support, and Estonia’s prime minister on Tuesday called for a more visible NATO presence in eastern Europe.

Washington has promised Ukraine $52 million in non-lethal security aid and has already provided combat rations, body armor, radios and other equipment. Pentagon leaders have met with Ukrainian counterparts to discuss a range of cooperation, but, for now, arms supplies have been ruled out.

“It is very important to understand that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming,” Obama told reporters at the White House last week.

Once again, Obama is acting, or rather reacting, too late with too little. Our troops in the Ukraine will be nothing more than targets, just as they are in Iraq.

Facebook

Second Class…or Third

Posted on by

Obama and his democrat/liberal cohorts continue to push the country into mediocrity. Increasingly, we see our military weakness exposed before the world. Democrat policies have severely damaged our capability from worn-out troops, worn-out equipment, worn-out aircraft and worn-out ships.

While this is going on, Putin is deploying new nuclear ICBM missiles and China expands its deep-water navy. Obama wants to reduce our nukes to only 300 all the while allowing Russia and China to expand their stocks.

China is expanding their fleet of nuclear missile subs—built with stolen US technology while our ships lie in the shipyards waiting for funding to make repairs. And where are those funds? They’ve been diverted to pay for some of Obama’s schemes.

Roby: US Military has been ‘cut to the bone’ by Democrats

by , 14 Mar, 2014

Rep. Martha Roby, R-AL02, today called on Senate Democrats to abandon what she described as a “misguided” plan to divert defense spending to fund aid to Ukraine and reform the United States’ relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

It is absolutely senseless to strip funding from the U.S. Military and send it overseas to prop up the IMF. I agree that we must stand strong in support of the Ukrainian people, and that’s why the House passed a simple, responsible package that uses funding already allocated for diplomatic purposes.

Our military has already been cut to the bone. The additional cuts proposed by Senate Democrats would further inhibit our readiness and send the wrong message internationally.

Now is a time for the United States to project strength in the world, not further erode our military capabilities. I urge Senate Democrats to abandon this misguided plan and work together with the House in a bi-partisan manner to provide responsible assistance to Ukraine.

Last week, the US House of Representatives passed a Ukrainian aid bill, H.R. 4152, that would provide loan guarantees to the Ukrainian government. The House bill does not appropriate new funds, but instead redirects existing funding from within State Department.

A separate Ukraine aid package passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday includes an additional provision taking $157.5 million from the Department of Defense to pay for reorganizing the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The House passed its Ukraine aid bill last Thursday by a vote of 385 to 23.

Roby’s comments come only a day after her House colleague Rep. Mo Brooks, R-AL05, issued a strongly worded statement saying he was “flabbergasted” by the idea of dolling out cash to Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund while slashing defense spending at home.

“Further cuts to national security, on top of the cuts imposed by sequestration and the Budget Control Act, embolden Russia’s Vladimir Putin and America’s other geo-political foes while making America weaker,” Brooks said.

The events today are remarkedly like those events between the World Wars, of the 1920s and 1930s. European and Eurasian dictators, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, were rebuilding their militaries. The Japanese  were expanding theirs and had invaded Manchuria, expanding their empire to seize resources needed for Japan’s expanding economy, industry and military. The Europeans dictators were field testing their weaponry in the Spanish Civil War.

While these events were happening, what was the west—the winners of World War I doing? Disarming and reducing their armies and naval fleets. See: the Washington and London Naval Treaties.

When you combine Obama’s deliberate emasculation of our military with the military expansion of Russia and China, the events of Russian aggression in Georgia, and the Ukraine, along with China’s territorial aggression in the Western Pacific, the similarities of events now, compared to those before World War II, are extremely discomforting.

The democrats between World War I and World War II had drastically cut the US military. For instance, in 1939, the entire US Marine Corp was 19,432 officers and enlisted. That number included the Marine aviation component. The army was similarly cut. When the events in Europe finally lead to warfare, the US had to resort to conscription to rebuild the armed services.

A decade ago, the US Navy had 12 carriers spread around the world. That number has now been reduced to 9 with several in or about to enter dry-dock for repair. Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s, built the Navy to over 600 ships. The number of ships currently in the US Navy, 290, is less than the number of ships prior to World War I. That weakness invites our enemies to act and act they are.

Obama thinks foreign policy is talk, talk being cheap. Russia and China follows Mao’s philosophy, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Facebook

The Marines maintain their standards

Posted on by

There is more to the title of this post than just five words. There should be two more appended to the end, “for now.”

With the Obama administration throwing open our military’s combat arms to women, the services have been soliciting women to enter those branches. The Air Force was first with female fighter pilots. The Navy had some, too. May still have some although I haven’t heard of any recent headlines about female Naval aviators.  The ones they had are no longer flying fighters last I heard. The most publicized naval female pilot/RIO combo, was killed in a ramp strike during carrier operations in 1997. The furor afterward found that women pilots had a different training standard than their male counterparts.

But, I will agree that female pilots can be as effective as men—as long as they have the SAME training and performance standards. A quick Google search on ‘female naval aviators’ had nothing more recent than 2007. I’m not saying there aren’t any such articles but a quick search didn’t list any. The Air Force, did have an article last year about a female officer taking command of a combat air wing. She was a fighter pilot with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But…but, what about the Army and Marines, can women be Infantry, Artillery, and Combat Engineer officers?  The Marines say, “Yes,” if they pass the Infantry Officer Course—using the same standards that the men must pass.

So far, the women aren’t passing.

Two female Marines fail to pass all-male infantry course

By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times, Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Two female Marine lieutenants have failed in their bid to complete the Corps’ grueling, all-male Infantry Officer Course (IOC).

The women’s recent washout after only a few days in the course follows the failure of two other female officers attempting to complete the same program in October.

The Corps now stands 0-4 in its search to find female Marines who have the physical strength and endurance to complete one of the most rigorous infantry schools in the military, located at the Quantico, Va., base.

Of 110 lieutenants in the first phase of the course, called the Combat Entrance Test, 14 failed, including the only two women, according to the Marine Corps Times.

“We will continue to solicit women to take part in the IOC program,” Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Richard Ulsh told The Washington Times. “I don’t know how [the failures] could stretch to mean something broader than what you’ve got.”

That isn’t good enough for the Pentagon. They insist that standards must be LOWERED if the services can’t provide a good excuse that the existing standards are necessary.

In January, then-Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, announced that the Pentagon had lifted a longtime ban on women serving in direct land combat jobs in infantry, armor and special operations units.

The armed services have until May 15 to submit to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans for integrating women into all military jobs, including those involving direct ground combat.

Gen. Dempsey has made it clear that if any service wants to continue the ban for certain jobs because the demands are too high, then the service should provide a good reason why those standards should not be lowered to allow women to succeed. — Washington Times

The Marines, however, are making a stand. The other services have not yet presented similar plans that match that of the Marines.

“The Marine Corps‘ high standards cannot be lowered, nor can we artificially lower them to ensure a certain percentage of females will qualify,” the memo states. “Conversely, we will not artificially raise standards.”

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Marine officer, has drafted legislation aimed at preventing the military from lowering standards as a way to make sure women qualify for combat jobs.

Mr. Hunter plans to try to attach his proposal to the 2014 defense budget when the House Armed Services Committee takes up the bill in May.

While the Marines Corps has conducted two test runs, the Army and special operations, such as the Navy’s SEALS, have yet to introduce women into their direct land combat training courses. — Washington Times

Any veteran will tell you that you cannot maintain effectiveness, nor maintain a given standard of performance by lowering standards. It’s pure idiocy. If women can’t meet the same standards as men, perhaps it is an endeavor they shouldn’t be in?

There is a reason why combat training is tough. No matter how difficult the training, actual combat is worse.

Facebook

Looking towards the future

Posted on by

We’re less than a month away from the nation-wide mid-term elections. All of the House is up for re-election and 1/3rd of the Senate. Expectations and polls favor Conservatives—not Democrats, not Republicans, but Conservatives. It’s a wave of “throw the b*st*rds out!” It originated in the lowest level of the political world and rose up to the Federal level.

There will be changes some January, 2011.

What happens after that? I don’t know. I know there is expectations of managing Obamacare to lessen the damage it is causing (note present tense) if there aren’t enough votes to repeal and overturn Obama’s veto. I expect there will be efforts to rein in the bureaucracy and the malfeasance of the liberal regulators. I expect there will be tax cuts or at least an extension of the existing Bush tax cuts.

It will be a battle.

What beyond this?

Unless Obama resigns, our foreign relations will continue to muddle along getting worse. Our military is declining. The Navy is the smallest since 1916…

The size of the fleet is much smaller. We are the smallest fleet that we have been since 1916, and our responsibilities and our interests are much greater than they were in 1916. The industrial base of the nation, something that I consider to be a strategic asset for a country is very different than it was in the last downturn. The last time we saw the budgets decline, there were six major shipbuilding corporations in the United States. Today, there are two. Our nuclear fleet – in the past would depend on eight major corporations, today there are two. The overhead costs that we experience are a result of a decrease in fleet size and not the commensurate decrease with all the infrastructure that we in the Navy posses. And the cost of operating the Navy, globally, is becoming more expensive.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead Delivers remarks at the Navy League of Denver August 24, 2010

…according to some sources and the Air Force is aging despite upgrades and becoming obsolete compared to what is coming from the EU and Russia. Both are about to produce stealthy aircraft. It will no longer be an American-only technology.

On a security front, I’m becoming to believe we’re more in danger from our southern border than we are overseas. There have been incursions into the US, most recently at Falcon Lake on the US/Mexican border, by drug cartel soldiers and even some in the uniform of the Mexican Army. One incident not long ago had Mexican “uniformed” soldiers firing on Border Patrol agents along the Arizona border. Small arms fire has been aimed toward El Paso from Juarez. There has even been reports of cartel enforcers taking control of ranches on the US side of the border during inter-cartel battles that spilled over from Mexico to the US.

All the while, the Obama government and democrat controlled congress does nothing.

This situation will continue unless the states and their National Guard units take active action. Action that I think will be short lived because Obama and the democrat bureaucracy will block and success.

At some point, the nation will have to act. Stiffening the border, removing the open sieve that it now is, will help. But it will not provide the security needed as long as the cartels control Mexico.

Let’s face it. The Mexican federal government is losing the battle against the cartels. Their Army is useless and has been heavily infiltrated by the cartels. That is why the government side of the battle along the border is being waged by the Mexican Marines! The Army cannot be trusted.

I fear that another war with Mexico is coming. Not so much a war against the government of Mexico, unless there is a total surrender to the cartels, but a war by the US against the cartels and their forces. I believe it will be more than an excursion like that of Pershing in 1914, but, hopefully less than the War with Mexico in 1846 through 1848.

Some have advocated a 200-mile buffer zone from the US border south. A zone that would still be Mexican sovereign territory but under US martial law and enforced by the US military. In many ways, it would be Iraq again after the invasion. That’s the bad part. The good part is that we now know how to handle situations where local elements are active against us and against the local governments. The tactics of the Iraqi Surge will work in Mexico as it did in Iraq.

Regardless, I don’t believe the next few years, nor the next few decades will be a peaceful one. The damage done by the liberals and leftists in our government has been heavy and it will take a long while to overcome—if we have the will.

I pray that we do.

US Armed Forces funds diverted by Senate to pay for Kennedy Institute

Posted on by

Is aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war, treason? Most would say, “Yes.”

If so, then what do you call those members in the Senate that diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill that had been budgeted for fuel, ammunition and training to pay for some special pork projects including funding the Ted Kennedy Institute for Education.

The lack of those funds directly affects the safety and well being of troops in the field, in combat. Here’s a column from the Washington Times that provides more detail.


U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance “a disgrace.”

“The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines,” he said in a statement.

Mr. Wheeler, who conducted the study, compared the Obama administration’s requests for funds with the $636 billion spending bill that the Senate passed. He discovered that senators added $2.6 billion in pet projects while spending $4 billion less than the administration requested for fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1.

Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the “operations and maintenance” or O&M accounts.

“These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel,” Mr. Wheeler said.

Raiding those accounts to fund big-ticket projects the military does not want, but that benefit senators’ home states or campaign contributors, amounts to “rancid gluttony,” he said.

The administration’s budget requested $156 billion for the regular O&M account and $81 billion for O&M for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed by the Senate cut $2.4 billion from the regular account and $655 million from the war O&M fund.

Senate appropriators insisted that the O&M accounts, despite the cuts, do not shortchange the troops.

“The operation and maintenance title is fully funded,” Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, said during the debate on the bill. “There is no shortage. … The committee is deeply concerned that the critical operational needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are met with the finest equipment available.”

Money for the Kennedy Institute was inserted by Mr. Inouye and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, and Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, sought the funding for the World War II museum.

Whitney Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said the earmark was “a worthy investment.”

“Sen. Kennedy served on the Armed Services Committee for 27 years, where he fought to deliver top-of-the-line body armor and armored Humvees to protect our troops and save lives. Educating Americans about these battles is a core mission for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, which showcases one senator’s ability to make a difference,” Mr. Smith wrote in an e-mail. “This funding will help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute become one the nation’s pre-eminent civic educational institutions, and Sen. Kerry is proud to have worked with Chairman Inouye to make it possible.”

Mrs. Landrieu said she was “proud to fight” for money for the World War II museum, which is not just a “monument to the brave men and women who served during World War II,” but also “a constant reminder to future generations about the tremendous sacrifice of millions of Americans.” She added that the earmarked funds “will help to increase tourism to New Orleans.”

Beyond those two earmarks, the largest in the Senate bill are:

– $20 million for Humvee maintenance at an Army National Guard installation in Maine, sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, Maine Republicans. The senators said cuts in the maintenance program proposed by the administration would result in the “layoff of 175 employees in a region already suffering” from the recession.

– $20 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System in Hawaii, requested by Mr. Inouye.

– $25 million inserted by Mr. Inouye for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. Mr. Inouye’s Web site says the health care program “supports applied research, development and deployment of technology to improve access and the quality of care to service members, military families and impacted communities.”

Laura Peterson, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan spending watchdog, told The Washington Times, “Earmarks like these take money away from other defense programs that the Defense Department actually wants. While military health care is certainly a worthwhile venture, it’s hard to see how a program located in Hawaii that openly favors Hawaii-based industries guarantees [the Department of Defense] the best value for such an exorbitant price tag.”

Mr. Inouye had a total of 35 earmarks worth more than $206 million in the final bill, and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, sponsored 48 worth $216 million.

Mr. Cochran defended earmarking as part of Congress’ responsibility to direct government spending.

“I am not ready to cede the power of the purse to any administration,” he told The Times in an e-mail. “It is vested by the Constitution in the Congress.” He added that appropriators had “reviewed the budget request very carefully, conducted public hearings and reported the appropriation bills that the committee thinks will serve the public interest.”

…

If the government was run with the same rules as governs businesses, this action would be a crime. It would be misappropriation of funds and fraud. But the Government isn’t a business, contrary to the liberals lust to nationalize the nation. But it does have fiscal responsibility to the nation, to the Armed Forces to insure our security. If an outside party had diverted fuel and ammunition to troops in combat, it would be called sabotage. If it was done by US citizens, it would be called treason.

What do we call it when sabotage is done by members of the US Senate?