"Open letter" to ANewtOne.com

American Truth Warriors,

Since my words are now being quoted and used to endorse a Troop Show done one year ago, I figured more quotes needed to be provided. I only wish there had been time to reply earlier, but recent events have kept me tied up.

“Great idea guys.”

This was brought to my attention; and apparently is an attempt by these two fraud’s to portray that I fully endorse their actions of late; which could be no further from the truth. At the time (Dec 2007), this was a great idea. I will stand by those words. This was a time when there were more than just the two members at ATW. The fact that 3 of 5 are no longer willing to be a part of your show speaks volumes; especially since two are people that served and I have come to respect. It was, however, in no way an original idea… cue the history lesson:

History of the USO

The USO was formed in 1941 in response to a request from President Franklin D. Roosevelt who determined it would be best if private organizations handled the on-leave recreation needs of the rapidly growing U.S. armed forces. Roosevelt’s call to action led six civilian agencies to coordinate their civilian war efforts and resources to form a new organization – the USO (United Service Organizations). The six civilian agencies were the Salvation Army, Young Men’s Christian Association, Young Women’s Christian Association, National Catholic Community Services, National Travelers Aid Association and the National Jewish Welfare Board. The USO was incorporated in New York February 4, 1941. The USO is a private, nonprofit organization, supported by private citizens and corporations.

Throughout World War II, the USO was the channel for community participation in the war effort. In more than 3,000 communities, USO centers were established to become the GIs “Home Away from Home.” Between 1940 and 1944, U.S. troops grew from 50,000 to 12 million, and their need for a variety of services grew accordingly. USO facilities were quickly opened in such unlikely places as churches, log cabins, museums, castles, barns, beach and yacht clubs, railroad sleeping cars, old mansions and storefronts.

From 1941 to 1947, USO Camp Shows presented an amazing 428,521 performances. In 1945, curtains were rising 700 times a day to audiences as large as 15,000 and as small as 25 on some outposts all over the world. More than 7,000 entertainers traveled overseas. During World War II, Americans had come together as never before. By war’s end, the USO could claim that more than 1.5 million volunteers had worked on its behalf.

As the USO celebrates more than 66 years of service, the world is witnessing history-making events at a record pace, events that have influenced the very nature and mission of America’s military. But one
thing is certain: The USO will diversify and change over time…as it has throughout its history…in order to fulfill its mission to service members and their families until every one comes home. (Please continue to read about the USO...)

Last I checked, 1941 slightly pre-dates BlogtalkRadio, anewtone.com, SonlitKnight, and Jimmy Z. The idea that these two frauds would dare try and take credit and proclaim they deserve credit is absurd and disgusting. This, a year ago, may very well have been “for the troops.” However, now it is about the two of them, and their website, drumming up traffic, and demanding credit. Never once have I heard in their utterly expletive-riddled rants (directed mostly at women) any credit given to the USO. They certainly have spent more than their fair share giving themselves credit and demanding it from others.

To be honest, it reminds me of the scheme democrats came up with a few years back. They made “use the military” part of the strategy in order to gain favor in the polls. Make sure to have service members visible at campaign stops.

I think…ya’ know, I realized the true humility of the individuals involved was this statement:

“WE ARE THE BEST AND A TROOP SHOW WITHOUT US IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE. WE ARE THE KINGS.”

I checked… and as noted above, if shows were done from the 40’s on the above is an outright lie. So Sonlit and Jimmy, don’t go harping about me slandering you. You knowingly made a false statement. You two might be “kings” of something but it most certainly is not troop shows. Bob Hope is the ONE AND ONLY king of troop shows. So spare us your fanatical self-deluded screeds. Rush Limbaugh defines “humble” when put next to you.

Another interesting FACT is that ASY started their show on BTR that very same December. So are you now going to say that you do more for troops than www.americasupportsyou.mil? I think not.

If I do recall correctly, it was Loki that did a fantastic job hosting the show. I think Sonlit you called twice. One maybe sincere call and another to “pimp” the site and ATW show. Classy stuff man. Classy. In the end Jimmy had better things to do than support the support show. I know we are busy people and have schedules. No excuse Jimmy. I was not going to be able to call in live due to work…… that is why I took the minor moments out of my day to record a message and get it to Loki to be played.

I will leave the public with this: be careful who you allow to lead you. When wanting to support this country and our Armed Services, there are far better sources to find pride. I will take my name out of the running. Loki, Snooper, Doug and others who are Veterans and ACTUALLY served, including those that host shows on the Pentagon Channel on BTR, for example ASY. And also, civvies like Flag Gazer who run a blog with the sole intention of SUPPORTING and HONORING the TROOPS.

On my final note, of the CURRENT makeup of American Truth Warriors I have more respect for maggots, for they serve a purpose. After wearing the uniform, this troop sure as hell did not appreciate your recent attempts to wrap yourselves in the flag and proclaim yourselves as “the king.”

For if you were REALLY doing the show FOR the troops, you would be calling those in uniform the kings… NOT YOURSELF.

I kindly request you quote the above line along with my other one you are currently displaying.

-md

Happy New Years to the Troops Show!

This show was scheduled earlier today after many conversations with several people yesterday, last night and early this morning. Feel free to tune in on BTR (link here). I, for one, know exactly what it is like being far away from home in a distant and hostile land and after the GREAT success of the Chandlers Watch and Do The Right Thing Christmas Shows for The Troops, what could be more appropriate than to hold a special show specifically for New Years? I spoke with that crazy guy Loki and he said we should go for it so here it is!

-Snooper

THE TROOPS! THE TROOPS!! AND NOTHING BUT THE TROOPS!!!

CinC Reflects on his 8 years.

Best video on the net.

I think this is the coolest video I have ever come across on the net.

Merry Christmas NORAD Style!

(This is an older video, but the best they ever made IMHO.)

For more than 50 years, NORAD and its predecessor, the Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD) have tracked Santa. The tradition began after a Colorado Springs-based Sears Roebuck & Co. store advertisement for children to call Santa on a special "hotline" included an inadvertently misprinted telephone number. Instead of Santa, the phone number put kids through to the CONAD Commander-in-Chief's operations "hotline." The Director of Operations, Colonel Harry Shoup, received the first "Santa" call on Christmas Eve 1955. Realizing what had happened, Colonel Shoup had his staff check radar data to see if there was any indication of Santa making his way south from the North Pole. Indeed there were signs of Santa and children who called were given an update on Santa's position. Thus, the tradition was born. In 1958, the governments of Canada and the United States created a bi-national air defense command for the North American continent called the North American Air Defense Command, known as NORAD. Canada and the U.S. believed they could better defend North America together as a team instead of separately.

NORAD carried out its first Santa tracking in 1958 after inheriting the tradition from CONAD. Since that time, Canadian and American men and women who work at NORAD have responded to phone calls from children personally. Additionally, media from all over the world call NORAD on Christmas Eve for updates on Santa's location. Last year this Website was visited by millions of people who wanted to know Santa's whereabouts. This year, the information is provided in six languages.

NORAD relies on many volunteers to help make Santa tracking possible. Hundreds of volunteers spend part of their Christmas Eve at the Santa Tracking Operations Center answering phones and emails to provide Santa updates to thousands of inquiring children worldwide.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

JOIN US TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS ON BTR TONIGHT!

Start here...and then just follow the crowd.

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays!

Repeal Posse Comitatus, or educate the public!

I am going to write a bit of a thesis paper here, regarding the Posse Comitatus Act. I feel that in some ways this Act is unconstitutional, and if not at a minimum it is very misunderstood in today’s world. Many view the Act as “no use of military on US soil.” The Act reads:

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” (Source)

Now some are worried about the amount of power invested in one person. So In very good debates on BTR with Loki and Snooper it has been said that only Congress can “ok” the use of the military on domestic soil. However, if you read the act it says “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” I stress the word “OR.” That word was obviously used to encourage the approval of Congress BUT it was not to limit and take away the powers of our Commander in Chief. So the history of the act is important, as well as the Sense of congress.

§ 466. Sense of Congress reaffirming the continued importance and applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act
(a) Findings
Congress finds the following:
(1) Section 1385 of title 18 (commonly known as the “Posse Comitatus Act”) prohibits the use of the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.
(2) Enacted in 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was expressly intended to prevent United States Marshals, on their own initiative, from calling on the Army for assistance in enforcing Federal law.
(3) The Posse Comitatus Act has served the Nation well in limiting the use of the Armed Forces to enforce the law.
(4) Nevertheless, by its express terms, the Posse Comitatus Act is not a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President’s obligations under the Constitution to respond promptly in time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency.
(5) Existing laws, including chapter 15 of title 10 (commonly known as the “Insurrection Act”), and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), grant the President broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help restore public order.
(b) Sense of Congress
Congress reaffirms the continued importance of section 1385 of title 18, and it is the sense of Congress that nothing in this chapter should be construed to alter the applicability of such section to any use of the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the laws. (Source)

So this does beg the question: what encouraged the people to create this Act? And who was behind it? Simply it was white democrats that did not like the Army making sure that the newly freed slaves from the south were exercising their constitutional rights! So that also brings me to the Oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).” (Source)

The Army is to defend the Constitution, against all enemies… even domestic. How could white democrats that voted for the Posse Comitatus act seem to think that making sure black Americans can vote, is a problem… It is a RIGHT not a problem! But the democrats are the party of voters rights, and black civil rights?! Right? Yet their history is actually that of trying to prevent voters from going to the polls and preventing blacks from being elected.

In Reconstruction era
John WillisMenard[1]Republican, Joseph Rainey Republican, Jefferson F. Long Republican, RobertC. De Large Republican, Robert B.Elliott Republican, BenjaminS. Turner Republican, Josiah T. Walls Republican, Richard H.Cain Republican, John R. Lynch Republican, James T. Rapier Republican, Alonzo J. Ransier Republican, Jeremiah HaralsonRepublican, John Adams Hyman Republican, Charles E. Nash Republican, Robert Smalls Republican, James E. O'Hara
Republican, Henry P. Cheatham Republican, John Mercer Langston Republican, Thomas E. MillerRepublican, George W. Murray Republican, George Henry White Republican

Therein lies the problem. ALL the blacks being elected to Congress were republican. HOW DARE THEY. So by not using the military to protect the Constitution they were able to politically defeat blacks and republicans. In a 30 year period during the Reconstruction era there were 21 black republicans with no democrats. During the modern era, after the Act, well beyond 50 black democrats were elected with one republican. The Act fundamentally changed POLITICS, it did not improve the military.

The law was a result of a political dispute, and was not a reflection of the Army’s conduct during its mission of maintaining civil order. The government must reconsider the law and rewrite it in light of the contemporary danger to the country.

The sheriff's usual recourse in such circumstances, the posse comitatus, did not really serve well. Too often a posse of local citizens quickly took a side in the conflict. The end result was often chaos, violence, and bloodshed.
(THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT OF 1878: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND IMPLICATIONS, PDF)

Why is it that we would have a military that is NOT used to enforce the federal laws? Why tell them to defend the Constitution? Why not make the oath to “defend the PEOPLE of the US at the borders from foreign enemies”? But the oath (Army) is to defend the Constitution, and I don’t think they meant the literal document. I know many people don’t like the idea of the Federal Govt keeping the states “in line.” I advocate states rights, but I also realize there is no point in being a “Union” if everyone gets to do what they want. To allow states rights to the degree some push for is nothing more than advocating for 50 separate countries/democracies/republics. The odd thing is that the same people tend to be the one that use the phrase “united we stand, divided we hang.”

If you are going to be a “member” of something you have to follow the rules. So I think that it is fine if a group of people have their heart set on violating the constitution to a massive degree that would upset the domestic tranquility, but do not expect not to be labeled a traitor:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The President of the United States of America must also take an oath, not just the Armed Forces: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Why would anyone NOT expect him to do everything in his power, and use every asset to defend the Constitution? That oath is followed by Section 2:

“The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…”

I seriously doubt that it was an accident that the oath is followed up with a way for POTUS to enforce his oath. To “defend the Constitution” was not only to be enforced by nice speeches.

ARMY EMPLOYMENT AGAINST CIVIL UNREST IN LOUISIANA DURING 1874
The Regular Army continued their record of success in maintaining civil order during
Reconstruction. There was significant unrest in Louisiana, especially in New Orleans, on both sides of the political and ideological spectrum. A group known as the White League formed. Their goal was to eliminate the political power of the Blacks and to elect White Democrat representatives.”

I would say that if you have a potential unrest on massive scale that is a violation of the USC, then today we have strong police forces so I doubt you would need the military. If a state today, with the help of local law enforcement (this does not include a normal civil disobedience), tried to block
black candidates while also preventing blacks from voting… excuse me, why is it that the military is able to work humanely with civilians overseas, but some have expressed fears that they would NOT be able to here on US soil with US citizens?

The Regular Army performed extremely professionally during the labor disputes. Under the circumstances of their use, federal troops came into only limited contact with mobs during the 1877 strikes. They nevertheless contributed greatly to the restoration of order, as Hancock reported, ‘by their presence alone.’ The positive results were not due to the size of the forces, for with only about 24,000 troops in the entire Army in 1877 only a small detachment could be used at any one place. But these Regular troops were well disciplined and, taking their cue from the President himself, they
acted with considerable restraint in putting down the strikes, neither losing a single soldier nor causing the death of any civilian.

The militia, on the other hand, was not as disciplined or well trained. “The National Guard’s performance was particularly dismal. Its units were almost completely unreliable. Some refused to serve, some broke up and joined the strikers, while others were bloodthirsty and nearly uncontrollable.”24 The difficulty with the citizen-soldiers during this crisis was that they were too close to their fellow citizens. For some, their connection to the strikers was stronger than their sense of military duty.
(THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT OF 1878: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND IMPLICATIONS, PDF)

This is not a “hit-piece” on the National Guard. That is in NO WAY my intent, for they have served with honor in this nation and abroad when called upon. Being around the military my entire life I learned that active, reserved, and Air NG…are all patriots that serve their country in the best way they can. But just because they have Army “National Guard” tagged on them…they are Army. Trained the same, fight the same, they are not trained with law enforcement skills any more than the regular ol’ Army. If one accepts that the NG has become a more professional force since its initial days, wouldn't one have to say that the standing Army has become even more professional as well?

“Many in Congress, especially the Democrats, wanted to reduce the size of the Army in 1878. The Great Sioux War of 1877 - 1878 was over. Congress did not see a significant threat that required as large an Army. The Posse Comitatus Act was a rider to the Army Appropriations Act. Since this rider was attached to the Appropriations Act, Congress had to pass the Posse Comitatus Act for the Army to receive funding in 1878. After debate, the legislation ultimately passed. The Posse Comitatus Act did two things. First, it prevented the use of the Army by the local sheriffs. It was also seen as limiting the power of the President by restricting the Army's ability to become involved in the local political/civil affairs. It did not, however, prevent the use of the Army to suppress civil disorder. The intent, however, was that this would not become a routine matter. In the 1870s, the Regular Army clearly demonstrated that it could effectively contribute to maintaining civil order. Despite the opinions of critics, the use of the Army did not lead to widespread bloodshed or significant abuse of the civil rights of the populace. If the circumstances require, the Army and the military as a whole could again accomplish this mission with similarly satisfactory results.

INTENT OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT
The original purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act was not so much to prevent the military from meddling in civilian law enforcement as is the current perception.

The Posse Comitatus Act was not, . . . as most people believe, enacted to prevent members of military services from acting as a national police force. It was enacted to prevent the Army from being abused by having its soldiers pressed into service as police officers (a posse) by local law enforcement officials in the post-Reconstruction South.

The real intent of the Posse Comitatus Act was to prevent civilian law enforcement from taking advantage of the military to assist in apprehending suspected criminals.
(THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT OF 1878: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND IMPLICATIONS, PDF)

Is that what we really want to do? Aren’t we against cutting funding of the military? If that is the case why in the world would one support a restriction on the President based on twisting the arm of the US military? If you support this act I feel that you support allowing the military to be held “hostage.” I have heard far too many conservatives complain that democrats won’t put a bill up on its own, they tag them on others they know must past. “Let the bill stand on its own!” I have read it, heard it, and want to know why it does not apply here.

What has caused this issue to explode in the past week? Articles and hype that misrepresented a new brigade being trained to respond to WMD attacks that made it sound like the military could just usurp the local law enforcement. It is, for the last time, to SUPPORT THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

But if there is a biological attack on a city like New York that requires quarantine, most of the law enforcement will fall ill themselves or be insufficient to maintain control. And living outside said city, I do not have a problem with the military surrounding the city. I would pray that it would not happen but if an infected person tries to leave, which would pose an obvious threat to the public, and lethal force is required to stop them, please explain to me how it matters whether that slug comes from a police 9mm, or a National Guard rifle, or Army rifle? They are all doing the same thing, DEFENDING THE COUNTRY FROM A THREAT (this one happens to be domestic).

“Following its key role in securing our liberty during the Revolutionary War, the role of the militia (today’s National Guard) as a fundamental component of our national defense was validated in the Constitution by the founders. The language reads, in part: “The Congress shall have Power To … provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

That is right. The “militia” is the National Guard, as defined above by the National Guard (PDF). We cannot sit safely by assuming that each individual is a member of this mythical “militia.” If so where is the discipline? Who does this mythical militia receive orders from? Is this the argument for a true democracy in America? Unless you have command and control, each one of us would be our own militia who could then take up arms against anything we disagree with resulting in anarchy. I seriously doubt that is what the founding fathers wanted for the future. If you think you are the militia, you take orders from the National Guard. Guess what, if he so determines POTUS can federalize NG and you take orders from him.

We simply put, as a union, CANNOT have 300 million militia, nor 50 different armies. We have ONE.

Federal Mission
The Army National Guard’s federal mission is to maintain well-trained, well-equipped units available for prompt mobilization during war and provide assistance during national emergencies (such as natural disasters or civil disturbances). The ARNG’s units (or any Reserve component forces) may be activated in a number of ways as prescribed by public law. Most of the laws for Federal Mission operations are in Title 10 of the U.S. Code.

When serving under Title 10, “active duty” means full-time duty in the active military
service of the United States. Title 10 allows the President to “federalize” National Guard forces by ordering them to active duty in their reserve component status or by calling them into Federal service in their militia status. This includes the following forms of active service:
o Voluntary Order to Active Duty. With his or her consent and the consent of the Governor.
o Partial Mobilization. In time of national emergency declared by the President for any
unit or any member for not more than 24 consecutive months.
o Presidential Reserve Call Up. When the President determines that it is necessary to augment the active forces for any operational mission for any unit or any member for not more than 270 days.
o Federal Aid for State Governments. Whenever an insurrection occurs in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States. This is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.
o Use of Militia and Armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority. Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellion make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State. This is another statutory exception to Posse Comitatus.
o Interference with State and Federal law. The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.

o Air and Army National Guard. Air and Army National Guard can specifically be called
into Federal service in case of invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute Federal law with active forces.

The National Guard Bureau (NGB), both a staff and operating agency, administers the federal functions of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Air National Guard (ANG). As a staff agency, the NGB participates with the Army and Air staffs in developing and coordinating programs that directly affect the National Guard. As an operating agency, the NGB formulates and administers the programs for training, development, and maintenance of the ARNG and ANG and acts as the channel of communication between the Army, Air Force, and the 50 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia where National Guard units are located. (PDF)

In a 2003 GAO report that stressed limitations as often as possible for domestic use it also had the Executive Recommendation:

“We recommend that the Secretary of Defense assess domestic military mission requirements and determine if steps should be taken to structure U.S. forces to better accomplish domestic military missions while maintaining proficiency for overseas combat missions.”

Through all of these debates/conversations my biggest concern was the idea that the military only “breaks stuff and kills.” I happen to disagree. That is an over simplistic point of view, and well… wrong. Our military only kills those that present a danger. I trust them more so than many police officers. This “break and kill” idea is no different than Murtha ASSUMING the Marines were bloodthirsty killers. I know that is harsh, but it is fact. No different, to assume that our military only has one mindset is very insulting, and wrong. If they can perform humanely overseas, why are they not able to on US soil?

Patriot Award...

Most artists are outraged by the govt using their music. Not, all!

“People assume we should be offended that somebody in the military thinks our song is annoying enough that played over and over it can psychologically break someone down. I take it as an honor to think that perhaps our song could be used to quell another 9/11 attack or something like that.”

—- Drowning Pool bassist Steve Benton, quoted by Spin magazine.

CIR VPOTUS-E Flashback

I am doing some work for the CIR Birthday. And came across this nugget!!! Next time you get in to the battle with the left over Iraq and WMDs just let them know what our new Vice President thinks...

QOTD 20070429

C.I.R. Quote of the day

“Everyone in the world thought he had them … this was not some Cheney pipedream.”

Senator Biden on Meet the Press describing how the UN had cataloged that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. I do not agree with Biden almost ever, but hey at least he doesn’t spend all his time in the land of black helicopters like so many on the left. Now you even have Biden running to be President saying this was not some conspiracy of made up propaganda to go to war. He gets a CIR liberal brownie point award.

USAF Recruit diagnosed with cancer.

Recruit with cancer denied medical benefits
By Erik Holmes - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 12, 2008 16:47:59 EST

Like many young recruits, Airman Basic Joseph Weston was looking forward to a career in the Air Force as an escape from a hometown without many opportunities.

“Michigan’s economy is just so awful up there,” said Weston, a 21-year-old native of Cadillac, Mich. “You don’t see ‘Now hiring’ signs. I was working 20 hours a week at a restaurant. That’s not enough to pay for an apartment and gas.”

Weston reported to basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, on May 27. He should be well on his way to a new life by now. He should be at tech school, learning to turn wrenches and fix jet engines. He should be about to pin on his first stripe and looking forward to his first operational assignment.

But none of that has happened.

Less than two weeks into basic training, on June 9, an Air Force doctor gave Weston devastating news: He has acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a form of blood cancer that is exceptionally rare, and often deadly, in adults.

And now, after months of brutal chemotherapy that has ravaged his body but held the cancer in check, the Air Force has decided the disease was pre-existing and Weston should be discharged from the service with no medical benefits. (Continue...)

What do you think the boards should decide? Cover or not to cover his needs?

CIR Radio Tonight 20081212

2100hrs Friday.

Missile Defense Test Briefing. 20081205

Obama, please make note!

December 8, 2008
Successful Missile Defense Test Shows Technology Not "Unproven"
by Baker Spring

On December 5, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) performed a successful intercept test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense interceptor. The GMD interceptor destroyed an incoming ballistic missile launched out of Kodiak, Alaska, in space over the Pacific Ocean. President-elect Barack Obama has stated that he will cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems.[2] His statement implies that the missile defense program's interceptor systems rely on unproven technology. The December 5 test, along with other MDA tests, demonstrates that the implication behind this statement is inaccurate.

The GMD interceptor, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, was flown to a point in space in the path of the incoming missile and, by the force of collision, the interceptor's kill vehicle destroyed the missile reentry vehicle. This direct hit, absent an explosive warhead, is called a kinetic energy intercept. Further, a variety of sensor systems were used to track the incoming missile from different locations. These systems included a transportable AN/TPY-2 radar located in Juneau, Alaska; a Navy Aegis ship in the Pacific with its SPY-1 radar; an Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base in California; and a Sea-Based X-band radar, also in the Pacific. Finally, the broader missile defense system's command and control system permitted military operators to launch the California-based interceptor from Fort Greely, Alaska.

The kinetic energy intercept technology used in the December 5 test is the same used in most other interceptors now under development by MDA. These include the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Standard Missile-3 sea-based interceptor, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) system. The latter program seeks to reduce the size and weight of the kill vehicles so that each interceptor missile can carry more than one kill vehicle. Since 2001, MDA has run 47 intercept tests with kinetic energy technology, and 37 have been successful.

Missile Defense Critics

Missile defense critics are likely to dismiss the positive implications of this test for the overall missile defense program. While the results of a single test should not be used to justify either the continuation or termination of any defense technology program, the critics' likely arguments will lack merit.

For example, critics may argue that the GMD system can be defeated by easily incorporated countermeasures designed to confuse the defense. The December 5 test attempted to deploy a "threat representative" target that would have required the interceptor to discriminate between the real target and false targets generated by the incoming missile. The countermeasures on board the target missile, however, did not deploy.[3] Nevertheless, the GMD interceptor is designed to discriminate between real and false targets. The December 5 test raises the question of whether--contrary to the assertions of some critics--such countermeasures are easily accessible to relatively primitive missile powers like Iran and North Korea.

The critics may also argue that the December 5 test was not an operational test and therefore does not justify the fielding of GMD interceptors in Alaska and California. While this criticism is accurate, it fails to acknowledge an important fact: Traditional operational tests cannot be used in the development and fielding of the overall missile defense system because the overall system consists of integrated components that must be built and fielded in order to be tested. For instance, consider the wide variety of sensors and the elaborate command and control system used to support the December 5 test of the GMD interceptor.

Finally, the critics may contend that this GMD interceptor is different from the model that the U.S. is proposing be deployed in Poland and therefore should not be construed as justifying the fielding of the interceptors slated for Poland. The fact is that both the interceptor used in the December 5 test and the interceptors the U.S. is proposing for Poland are both GMD interceptors. The only significant difference between the two is that the interceptors for the site in Poland will include two stages, while the one used in the test has three stages.

Proven Technology

President-elect Obama has stated that fielded missile defense systems' technology must first be proven; the MDA's ballistic missile defense test regime is meeting that challenge. The MDA's technology--kinetic-energy kill vehicles--is being used in an array of interceptors and has been tested on numerous occasions with a 75 percent success rate. President-elect Obama should acknowledge the continuing progress on kinetic-energy missile defense technology and continue to invest in and field the missile defense interceptors that incorporate this technology.

Baker Spring is F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

December 7th, 2007

C.I.R. Press Memorial

God bless those who lost their lives then and who continue to do so in sacrifice for their country.

"Sixty-[seven] years ago ... the United States endured an attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, that for the next 60 years -- until Sept. 11, 2001 -- stood as the most devastating enemy attack on U.S. soil.

"Like the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor has been called a defining moment in U.S. history. It caught the country by surprise, rallied its people against their attackers and thrust the nation into a long, difficult war against tyranny.

"Within hours of the surprise attack in the early-morning hours of Dec. 7, 1941, more than 2,400 Americans were dead. Five of the eight battleships at the U.S. Fleet's Pearl Harbor base were sunk or sinking, and the other battleships, as well as ships and Hawaii-based combat planes, were heavily damaged." (USAF Link)

Above:Courtesy of a Japanese fighter, photographing the attack on the harbor.

"In the 21st century, freedom is again under attack, and young Americans have stepped forward to serve in a global war on terror that will secure our liberty and determine the destiny of millions around the world," President Bush said. "Like generations before, we will answer history's call with confidence, confront threats to our way of life, and build a more peaceful world for our children and grandchildren."

Technorati Tags: Pearl Harbor, Navy, December 7th

CIR Radio Tonight 20081205

2100hrs Friday.

Customer service question...WTF!!!

Obama, the States Rights Advocate?

I am up for this concept, the question is "Will you actually follow your own words Senator Obama?"

Obama hijacks GOP language on key issues
Stephen Dinan

Borrowing a line from the Republican-revolution playbook of the 1990s, President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday told the nation's governors that he wants them to reassert states as the laboratories for solutions to the nation's big problems.

"That's the spirit that I want to reclaim for the country as a whole," Mr. Obama told the National Governors Association, gathered in Philadelphia. "One where states are testing ideas, where Washington is investing in what works, and where you and I are working together in partnership on behalf of the great citizens of this nation."

Showing fealty to the Founding Fathers' concept of federalism and states' roles in a divided government is the latest statement of humility and outreach from Mr. Obama during his transition. It's one olive branch Republicans said they hope to grab as Mr. Obama seeks to make good on his campaign pledge of change.

"Time will tell. I'm certainly hopeful he will indeed push for states to be the laboratories for change, because they can be," said Gov. Mark Sanford, South Carolina Republican. "If one really believes in change, states are going to be front and center."

(Cont..)

SECDEF Gates.

At a press conference a few moments ago, Defense Sec. Robert M. Gates, who was formally reappointed yesterday by Pres.-elect Barack Obama, confirms that he does indeed have a party affiliation.

"I felt when I was at the CIA that as a professional intelligence officer, like a military officer, I should be apolitical, so I didn't register with a party," he said, adding,"... I consider myself a Republican. Until yesterday, all of my senior appointments have been for Republicans."

Gates also said he has not determined how long he'll stay on in the position. "I've thrown away the clock because it was absolutely useless at the end of the day," he said with a chuckle.

Your new SECSTATE

Well folks here is your new Sec of State in a performance that dare I say DISGUSTED me as I sat watching in the room. 4 minutes in. (Do you think Obama will make Gates take off his cufflinks???)

CLINTON: Based on your experience, which goes back quite a ways in this town, do you believe the president, the vice president and the existing secretary of defense are intelligent men?

GATES: Yes, ma'am.

CLINTON: Are they patriotic?

GATES: Absolutely.

CLINTON: Do they care about our men and women in uniform?

GATES: Absolutely.

CLINTON: Do they believe the decisions they have made for the last five years have been in America's best interests?
GATES: I have not had that discussion with any of them, Senator.

CLINTON: Well if we...

GATES: I've heard that they believe that they were in the country's best interests.