NEW - NEW - FREE ZONE'S FIRST NEW STORE - SUPPORT US - OBAMA SAID "NO" - LOL ?
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Air Force Removes ‘God’ From Logo
Feb 7, 2012
Rep. Randy Forbes, (R-VA), said the Air Force removed the logo several weeks ago from the Rapid Capabilities Office. The patch included a line written in Latin that read, “Doing God’s Work with Other People’s Money.”
But after the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers complained, Forbes said the line was rewritten in Latin to read, “Doing Miracles with Other People’s Money.”
Forbes, along with a bi-partisan group of 35 lawmakers, sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz expressing concern over the decision to remove a non-religious reference to God.
“It is most egregious,” Forbes told Fox News. “The Air Force is taking the tone that you can’t even use the word ‘God.’”
Forbes said his office contacted the Air Force and officials there confirmed that the logo had been changed after the atheist group complained.
A spokesman for the Air Force told Fox News they had received the letter and would investigate the claims.
Forbes said the removal of “God” is a “bridge too far in terms of the rights of men and women who serve in our services and their ability to express their faith.”
“But the significance of this is what the Air Force is saying with this move – that the word ‘God’ – whether it has any reference to faith or not, can’t be used in the Air Force,” Forbes said.
He said the incident is one of several in recent months that have caused him to wonder if the military is cleansing itself of religious references.
“It’s a very dangerous course to take,” he said.
“I am concerned that the RCO capitulated to pressure from an outside group that consistently seeks to remove references to God and faith in our military,” he said. ‘The RCO’s action to modify the logo sets a dangerous precedent that all references to God, regardless of context, must be removed from the military.”
Post Link --> 9:35 PM
When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted Democrat, give them this list. Then they can then pick a reason from this "TOP 12"...
1. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
2. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
3. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
4. I voted Democrat because I believe oil company's profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
5. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Chevy Volt.
6. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
7. I voted Democrat because I like the government telling me what kind of light bulbs I can buy.
8. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
10. I voted Democrat because I think that it is better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.
11. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised "HOPE AND CHANGE".
12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
Post Link --> 7:00 PM
ONLY A MAN
WOULD ATTEMPT THIS
Just try reading this without laughing till you cry!!!
Pocket Tazer Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife.
A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Tazer for their anniversary submitted this:
Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 15th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Julie. What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse-sized Tazer
The effects of the Tazer were supposed to be short lived, with no long term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety...??
WAY TOO COOL! Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home... I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button and pressed it against a metal surface at the same time, I'd get the blue arc of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs.
AWESOME!!! Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave.
Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two AAA batteries, right?
There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target.
I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and then thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised.
Am I wrong?
So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and Tazer in another..
The directions said that:
a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant;
a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; and
a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water.
Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries.
All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5" long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference (loaded with two itsy, bitsy AAA batteries); pretty cute really, and thinking to myself, 'no possible way!'
What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best.
I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side so as to say, 'Don't do it stupid,' reasoning that a one second burst from such a tiny lil ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad.. I decided to give myself a one second burst just for heck of it.
I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and..
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. WHAT THE... !!!
I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs! The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before, clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace, obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body flopping all over the living room.
If you ever feel compelled to 'mug' yourself with a Tazer,
one note of caution:
There is NO such thing as a one second burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor!
A three second burst would be considered conservative!
A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape.
· My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace.
· The recliner was upside down and about 8 feet or so from where it originally was.
· My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching.
· My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs.
· I had no control over the drooling.
· Apparently I had crapped in my shorts, but was too numb to know for sure, and my sense of smell was gone.
· I saw a faint smoke cloud above my head, which I believe came from my hair.
I'm still looking for my testicles and I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return!
PS: My wife can't stop laughing about my experience, loved the gift and now regularly threatens me with it!
Post Link --> 6:41 PM
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Some developing news in the case of Juan Jose Rojas Cardona, who is a fugitive on drug and fraud charges. In 2009 it was discovered that he was involved in a plot to assassinate a rival and bribe Mexican officials.
This has gone public, as has his $200,000 in fundraising done for Barack Obama. Obama has now returned the money, but the scrutiny on Cardona continues. It now appears that Cardona's links to the organized crime world also ties him to the DEA, which ran Operation Fast and Furious. Cardona was allegedly involved with a top drug cartel across the border, which laundered millions with the help of the American government.
Just recently, his brother Carlos attempted to have Juan pardoned by the Democratic Party out of Iowa:
|Juan Jose Rojas Cardona|
Just recently, his brother Carlos attempted to have Juan pardoned by the Democratic Party out of Iowa:
As recently as January of last year, one of Mr. Cardona’s brothers in Chicago, Carlos Rojas Cardona, arranged for the former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party to seek a pardon from the governor for Pepe Cardona, according to prosecutors in that state. None was forthcoming.Wikileaks exposed a US Consulate cable that showed five million dollars in bribes that the Cardona brothers had paid to Mexican politicians, and also exposed that they may be linked to the Beltran Leyva drug cartel.
The Consulate also added that the brothers Rojas Cardona may have ties to the cartel of the Beltran Leyva and PAN politicians.
"T he smugglers, casino operators, and corrupt politicians form a triangle of self-protection, making it difficult for honest cops deal with organized crime. One way for the Mexican government break the cartels would review its policy on licensing of casino "concludes Williamson.Last month Fox reported that the very same cartel was involved in a similar operation as Fast and Furious, run by the DEA. In this operation, the US helped the group (as well as a Colombian cartel) launder money in exchange for information.
The group of officials conducted at least 15 wire transfers to banks in the United States, Canada and China and smuggled and laundered about $2.5 million in the United States. They lost track of much of that money.
In his testimony, the DEA agent in charge of the operation says DEA agents posing as pilots flew at least one shipment of cocaine from Ecuador to Madrid through a Dallas airport.
The Cardona brothers were one of the most corrupt elements in the casino business in Mexico, bringing in millions of dollars. It is certainly possible that their involvement in the drug industry is far more than said. And considering their role in extortion and bribery, it is certainly possible that they were involved in Operation Fast and Furious or a related event.
In addition, since the Cardona brothers were involved in extortion and money rackets, it is not inconceivable that the Beltran Leyva cartel transfered the money to Cardonas casinos to wash their hands of it. Juan Cardona gives $200,000 to Obama and the Justice Department might just pardon him.
Post Link --> 6:29 PM
Post Link --> 5:41 PM
How military leaders have let us down
BY LT. COL. DANIEL L. DAVIS
I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. Over the course of 12 months, I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.
What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.
Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.
Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.
My arrival in country in late 2010 marked the start of my fourth combat deployment, and my second in Afghanistan. A Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch, I served in Operation Desert Storm, in Afghanistan in 2005-06 and in Iraq in 2008-09. In the middle of my career, I spent eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs — among them, legislative correspondent for defense and foreign affairs for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.
As a representative for the Rapid Equipping Force, I set out to talk to our troops about their needs and their circumstances. Along the way, I conducted mounted and dismounted combat patrols, spending time with conventional and Special Forces troops. I interviewed or had conversations with more than 250 soldiers in the field, from the lowest-ranking 19-year-old private to division commanders and staff members at every echelon. I spoke at length with Afghan security officials, Afghan civilians and a few village elders.
I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.
I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.
From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.
FROM BAD TO ABYSMAL
Much of what I saw during my deployment, let alone read or wrote in official reports, I can’t talk about; the information remains classified. But I can say that such reports — mine and others’ — serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress.
And I can relate a few representative experiences, of the kind that I observed all over the country.
In January 2011, I made my first trip into the mountains of Kunar province near the Pakistan border to visit the troops of 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry. On a patrol to the northernmost U.S. position in eastern Afghanistan, we arrived at an Afghan National Police (ANP) station that had reported being attacked by the Taliban 2½ hours earlier.
Through the interpreter, I asked the police captain where the attack had originated, and he pointed to the side of a nearby mountain.
“What are your normal procedures in situations like these?” I asked. “Do you form up a squad and go after them? Do you periodically send out harassing patrols? What do you do?”
As the interpreter conveyed my questions, the captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.
“No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!”
According to the cavalry troopers, the Afghan policemen rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints. In that part of the province, the Taliban literally run free.
In June, I was in the Zharay district of Kandahar province, returning to a base from a dismounted patrol. Gunshots were audible as the Taliban attacked a U.S. checkpoint about one mile away.
As I entered the unit’s command post, the commander and his staff were watching a live video feed of the battle. Two ANP vehicles were blocking the main road leading to the site of the attack. The fire was coming from behind a haystack. We watched as two Afghan men emerged, mounted a motorcycle and began moving toward the Afghan policemen in their vehicles.
The U.S. commander turned around and told the Afghan radio operator to make sure the policemen halted the men. The radio operator shouted into the radio repeatedly, but got no answer.
On the screen, we watched as the two men slowly motored past the ANP vehicles. The policemen neither got out to stop the two men nor answered the radio — until the motorcycle was out of sight.
To a man, the U.S. officers in that unit told me they had nothing but contempt for the Afghan troops in their area — and that was before the above incident occurred.
In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. Several troops from the unit had recently been killed in action, one of whom was a very popular and experienced soldier. One of the unit’s senior officers rhetorically asked me, “How do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on these missions? What’s harder: How do I look [my soldier’s] wife in the eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? How do I do that?”
One of the senior enlisted leaders added, “Guys are saying, ‘I hope I live so I can at least get home to R&R leave before I get it,’ or ‘I hope I only lose a foot.’ Sometimes they even say which limb it might be: ‘Maybe it’ll only be my left foot.’ They don’t have a lot of confidence that the leadership two levels up really understands what they’re living here, what the situation really is.”
On Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the infamous attack on the U.S., I visited another unit in Kunar province, this one near the town of Asmar. I talked with the local official who served as the cultural adviser to the U.S. commander. Here’s how the conversation went:
Davis: “Here you have many units of the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF]. Will they be able to hold out against the Taliban when U.S. troops leave this area?”
Adviser: “No. They are definitely not capable. Already all across this region [many elements of] the security forces have made deals with the Taliban. [The ANSF] won’t shoot at the Taliban, and the Taliban won’t shoot them.
“Also, when a Taliban member is arrested, he is soon released with no action taken against him. So when the Taliban returns [when the Americans leave after 2014], so too go the jobs, especially for everyone like me who has worked with the coalition.
“Recently, I got a cellphone call from a Talib who had captured a friend of mine. While I could hear, he began to beat him, telling me I’d better quit working for the Americans. I could hear my friend crying out in pain. [The Talib] said the next time they would kidnap my sons and do the same to them. Because of the direct threats, I’ve had to take my children out of school just to keep them safe.
“And last night, right on that mountain there [he pointed to a ridge overlooking the U.S. base, about 700 meters distant], a member of the ANP was murdered. The Taliban came and called him out, kidnapped him in front of his parents, and took him away and murdered him. He was a member of the ANP from another province and had come back to visit his parents. He was only 27 years old. The people are not safe anywhere.”
That murder took place within view of the U.S. base, a post nominally responsible for the security of an area of hundreds of square kilometers. Imagine how insecure the population is beyond visual range. And yet that conversation was representative of what I saw in many regions of Afghanistan.
In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.
As the numbers depicting casualties and enemy violence indicate the absence of progress, so too did my observations of the tactical situation all over Afghanistan.
I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.
A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”
The following month, Anthony Cordesman, on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that ISAF and the U.S. leadership failed to report accurately on the reality of the situation in Afghanistan.
“Since June 2010, the unclassified reporting the U.S. does provide has steadily shrunk in content, effectively ‘spinning’ the road to victory by eliminating content that illustrates the full scale of the challenges ahead,” Cordesman wrote. “They also, however, were driven by political decisions to ignore or understate Taliban and insurgent gains from 2002 to 2009, to ignore the problems caused by weak and corrupt Afghan governance, to understate the risks posed by sanctuaries in Pakistan, and to ‘spin’ the value of tactical ISAF victories while ignoring the steady growth of Taliban influence and control.”
How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by U.S. senior leaders in Afghanistan? No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect — and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve — to have our leaders tell us the truth about what’s going on.
I first encountered senior-level equivocation during a 1997 division-level “experiment” that turned out to be far more setpiece than experiment. Over dinner at Fort Hood, Texas, Training and Doctrine Command leaders told me that the Advanced Warfighter Experiment (AWE) had shown that a “digital division” with fewer troops and more gear could be far more effective than current divisions. The next day, our congressional staff delegation observed the demonstration firsthand, and it didn’t take long to realize there was little substance to the claims. Virtually no legitimate experimentation was actually conducted. All parameters were carefully scripted. All events had a preordained sequence and outcome. The AWE was simply an expensive show, couched in the language of scientific experimentation and presented in glowing press releases and public statements, intended to persuade Congress to fund the Army’s preference. Citing the AWE’s “results,” Army leaders proceeded to eliminate one maneuver company per combat battalion. But the loss of fighting systems was never offset by a commensurate rise in killing capability.
A decade later, in the summer of 2007, I was assigned to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) organization at Fort Bliss, Texas. It didn’t take long to discover that the same thing the Army had done with a single division at Fort Hood in 1997 was now being done on a significantly larger scale with FCS. Year after year, the congressionally mandated reports from the Government Accountability Office revealed significant problems and warned that the system was in danger of failing. Each year, the Army’s senior leaders told members of Congress at hearings that GAO didn’t really understand the full picture and that to the contrary, the program was on schedule, on budget, and headed for success. Ultimately, of course, the program was canceled, with little but spinoffs to show for $18 billion spent.
If Americans were able to compare the public statements many of our leaders have made with classified data, this credibility gulf would be immediately observable. Naturally, I am not authorized to divulge classified material to the public. But I am legally able to share it with members of Congress. I have accordingly provided a much fuller accounting in a classified report to several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, senators and House members.
A nonclassified version is available at www.afghanreport.com. [Editor’s note: At press time, Army public affairs had not yet ruled on whether Davis could post this longer version.]
TELL THE TRUTH
When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.
Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.
Continue the conversation: Use #DavisAFJ when discussing this story on Twitter. Follow us at @afjournal.
MORE FROM AFJ:
* A failure in generalship (May 2007)
Post Link --> 4:40 PM
undercover video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas shows how easy it is to register NFL stars Tim Tebow, Tom Brady and practically anybody else to vote in that state. No identification of any sort is needed, just a name! In fact, you can take 20 application forms home, fill them in, check the “no ID” slot and batch register people in absentia. Even local election officials are dismayed with the complete lack of authentication of any sort. On the video, they admit “We’re not the police.”
Post Link --> 4:16 PM
A recent court ruling barring Scottsdale police from arresting rowdy drunk people in public has drawn a spotlight on a decades-old Arizona law that says cities and towns cannot enforce their own drunken-behavior laws.
The Dec. 20 ruling from Scottsdale City Judge James Blake has prompted residents, police officials and lawmakers to explore ways to counteract the ruling, which could open the door for local governments to adopt and enforce their own laws on public drunkenness.
Blake ruled that Scottsdale's code governing drunkenness is in violation of a state law that took effect in 1974, barring counties and municipalities from adopting or enforcing local laws related to intoxication.
Scottsdale is appealing the ruling. For now, police officers can no longer arrest or cite people heavily under the influence of alcohol in public when they pose a danger to themselves or others.
Ken Strobeck, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said local enforcement of drunkenness has been on the radar of several Arizona communities, particularly Winslow, Holbrook and Page, which are concerned about inebriated people on their streets.
Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, sponsored a bill this session that would have addressed some of the concerns.
Allen decided to hold off on a Senate committee vote on the bill after opponents brought up concerns.
Senate Bill 1082 proposes to, among other things, allow cities and counties to regulate drive-through liquor sales and the sales of beer in containers that are 40 ounces or larger.
"I'm still working on the bill -- it isn't dead," said Allen, who called it "wrong" not to allow communities to "solve particular local problems."
In 2011, Allen sponsored Senate Bill 1177 that would have allowed municipalities to adopt and enforce their own intoxication laws. Senate leadership never scheduled it for a vote of the full Senate.
According to the Scottsdale city attorney, the ruling does not reverse prior convictions for public intoxication.
In a city known for its booming nightlife, neighbors and business owners are concerned that the ruling makes it harder for law enforcement to crack down on overly drunk revelers in the city's downtown-entertainment district.
The district, east of Scottsdale Road and south of Camelback Road, is heavily populated with nightclubs and bars, drawing revelers from across the Valley and from out of town.
"It would be a giant step backwards for our public-safety programs," said Bill Crawford, a downtown resident and business owner who is president of the Association to Preserve Downtown Scottsdale's Quality of Life.
Phoenix spokeswoman Toni Maccarone said the city has a drunk-and-disorderly ordinance, which makes it a misdemeanor to be in a public place, street, alley or sidewalk in a drunk or disorderly condition.
City officials were not immediately available to comment on the state law's effects on Phoenix's ordinance.
Scottsdale's code on public drunkenness has been a "huge tool, especially in the downtown area," said Jim Hill, president of the Police Officers of Scottsdale Association.
Sgt. Mark Clark, a Scottsdale police spokesman, said officers will not ignore people who are inebriated and pose a danger to themselves or others. Because disorderly-conduct and other laws still apply, officers can cite and arrest drunks if they are a nuisance, he noted.
"We're still concerned about the intoxicated people in the neighborhood," Clark said. "We'll still respond."
Republic reporter Ofelia Madrid contributed to this article.http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/02/01/20120201ruling-public-drunkenness-draws-fire.html#ixzz1ljND8rC2
Post Link --> 3:50 PM
Yesterday, Coach is Right published facts concerning an avenue which honest and courageous congressional Republicans might follow in their efforts to bring to justice those responsible for the criminal misadventure of Operation Fast and Furious and its subsequent cover-up. The following represents current news of a vastly different approach.
Congressman John Boehner, the House Speaker better known for displays of weeping than of courage, is reportedly cutting a deal with Eric Holder which would provide a “mutually satisfactory” outcome in Barack Obama’s criminal, gun running endeavor Operation Fast and Furious.
Months ago, Boehner prevented Darrell Issa filing a charge of perjury against Holder even after documents proved the Attorney General’s May 4th House testimony concerning the date of his first “acquaintance” with Fast and Furious to be an outright lie. And now the weepy Speaker will OFFICIALLY let the most corrupt Department of Justice head in the nation’s history off the hook for complicity in the Regime’s murderous scheme to savage the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people.
The terms of the betrayal John Boehner is currently putting together:
The Committee will accept the scalps of [Lanny] Breuer and [Jason] Wienstein, DOJ will release enough of the (documents) to condemn them, claim cooperation (thus giving the appearance of recognizing congress’s oversight authority), and Holder will survive – looking like a “leader” for offering them up (along with a few lower level ATF and DOJ folk). The Committee will chalk one in the “Win” column for oversight and holding people accountable. DOJ will have the same for cooperating and accountability.
Lovely, isn’t it! Hundreds are dead, including two American agents. One of those dead, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was literally set up for murder by an FBI INFORMANT who, on December 14th of 2010, accompanied and LED the drug cartel rip gang responsible for Terry’s death. The other victim, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was NOT PERMITTED by LAW to even possess a weapon with which he might have defended himself from his killers!
Yet John Boehner will be pleased to sell them out in order to lay claim to the pathetically comic mantle of a tough-minded Republican leader who brought down 2 Obama Regime, Department of Justice higher-ups. That is, with the approval of the White House, of course.
But in point of fact Boehner will, as usual, simply be doing do what is politically safe and expedient rather than what is RIGHT. He will continue his customary role of bowing and scraping before leftist media and political types who allow useful idiots like himself to remain in positions of strictly limited authority only on condition they make no waves and create no embarrassment for the real ruling class in the nation’s capital.
Are the House committee sources of Mike Vanderboegh–the citizen journalist responsible for so much of what we know of the Fast and Furious scheme and its DOJ sponsored cover-up–right about the looming betrayal to be perpetrated by the Speaker?
We will know by the actions of House leadership and the designated sacrificial lambs in this little exercise of DC collusion. If Republican leadership demand NO prison time for any of the lambs, the fix is in. If any of those being sold down the river in return for the Regime’s continued ability to escape responsibility actually ARE on the way to jail, yet somehow unable to trade extremely damaging evidence against the DOJ or White House for protected status, we’ll ALSO know the fix is in.
Either way, allowing Eric Holder to stroll scot-free over the graves of Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata would place John Boehner among the most disgraceful and despicable traitors to the American public in our nation’s history. But don’t expect him to shed any tears over such a trifle. Little Johnny isn’t THAT sensitive.
Post Link --> 3:41 PM
The Grand Lie and West Point
Recently the West Point Military Academy denied retired LTG Jerry Boykin, a candid speaker about Islam, a chance to be at a prayer breakfast at West Point. The usual suspects not only didn’t want any discussion that might involve Islam, they didn’t even want someone who had spoken about it in the past.
U.S. Army doctrine "instructs Army leaders to respect [emphasis added] the Muslim culture as a part of counterinsurgency operations," VoteVets said in a letter to West Point Superintendent Lieutenant General David Huntoon. Boykin's past remarks "threaten our relationship with Muslims around the world, and thereby, our troops serving in harm's way," said VoteVets, which represents veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is not the first time that our military has rejected someone who knows about the doctrine and history of Islam from speaking. The first causality was Steve Coughlin in 2008 under George Bush. Steve is an expert on Sharia and Islamic war doctrine who worked at the Pentagon. He was terminated after a complaint by a Muslim.
For an illustration of the “know nothing about Islam” doctrine see General Stanley McChrystal’s Afghanistan war strategy that made no mention of Islamic war doctrine.
At least our military is consistent over time. They know nothing about Islamic war doctrine. They see nothing. They hear nothing. They think nothing. They speak nothing. And they will not listen to anyone who does, not even one meeting.
It is odd that an organization devoted to war, fighting and conflict cannot even stage a discussion, much less a debate, about what part Islamic doctrine plays in Islamic war. But, no, our military commanders have taken up the position that there is only one view of Islam, that which pleases Islam, that of a dhimmi, and that any position that is not submissive to Islam is bigotry. [An editorial observation: the higher you go in rank, the more PC the officer becomes. The lower ranks are much more enlightened about Islam.]
Our military fully subscribes to the Grand Lie of Islam—there is only one valid view of Islam, that which pleases Muslims.
But, there are three views of Islam, not one. Take the example of the day that Mohammed murdered 800 male Jews in Medina, after he sold off the women for slaves and adopted the Jewish children into Muslim families. What was the nature of this event? There are three views:
• For Muslims this was a day of absolute good as Islam triumphed over the evil Jews who had denied the prophet-hood of Mohammed.
• For Kafirs (non-Muslims) this was an act of evil.
• For Kafirs (non-Muslims) this was an act of evil.
• Then there is the view of the apologist for Islam—let’s not be judgmental. That was then, and this is now. Christians have done worse.
Our military has adopted the view of the apologist, the Grand Lie. To be fair, they have been pushed into the PC camp by their civilian bosses. It is just that somehow, you hope that men, who can fight a war that goes “bang”, could also fight a war of ideas that goes “think”. Whatever happened to: “Know the enemy”?
Instead we have a military doctrine of “respect” for Islam. How about trading in respect for full knowledge of the jihad doctrine and civilizational war? Who has ever heard of the military (or police) ever using any knowledge found in Koran about war? The Koran of Medina devotes 24% to jihad, 9% overall. The Sira (Mohammed’s biography) devotes 67% of its text to jihad and 21% of Bukhari’s Hadith is devoted to jihad. Nearly a third of the Trilogy is about jihad.
You think that the Taliban and al Qaeda don’t read Koran, Sira and Hadith? General SK Malik of the Pakistani army wrote a book, The Quranic Concept of War, that is REQUIRED reading of ALL general staff officers in Pakistan. A favorite quote: “Whatever the form or type of strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective, be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy.”
Hello, Pentagon, FBI, CIA, DEA, DHS and the rest, the clue phone is ringing, pick it up. Stop respecting Islam by code and really respect Islam and study its doctrine of war. Read the Sira first. Read the jihad hadiths next. Finally, read the Koran of Medina. Meditate on civilizational war. Then invite LTG Jerry Boykin back to speak.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
To subscribe: go to www.politicalislam.com and sign up for our newsletters (left-hand side).
Post Link --> 3:37 PM
TOPEKA, KS (KCTV) -
A Kansas board that denied a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine a license was primarily concerned about the man's political views.
The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts is a 15-member panel appointed by the governor and decides the fate of doctors in Kansas.
Terrence Lee Lakin rose to the ranks of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. He served on the front lines in Afghanistan and the war zone in Bosnia as well as a medical mission to Honduras. He saved lives around the world and received a Bronze Star for his service.
"I like helping people," said Lakin. "And I've been, since college wanting to be in medical field and help others."
But a dispute over whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States led to Lakin being forced from the military and apparently led to the Kansas board in October denying him a medical license to practice in the Sunflower State.
The board repeatedly refused comment on their decision, but a transcript of Lakin's shows board members didn't concern themselves with Lakin's 18-year spotless medical record.
"They hammered me for my political views," said Lakin.
Nearly two years ago, the then lieutenant colonel asked for proof that Obama was born in the United States. When he didn't get it, Lakin announced via a video posted on www.safeguardourconstitution.com, "I will disobey my orders to deploy because I believe all servicemen and women and the American people deserve the truth about President Obama, the office of the presidency and the commander in chief."
In April 2010, citing a possible break in the chain of command, Lakin did refuse a second tour of duty to Afghanistan. In December of that year, he went through a court martial for missing movement and failing to obey a lawful order – both violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When Lakin was found guilty of breaking military law, the Army gave him a dishonorable discharge, stripped him of his rank and sentenced him to a six-month prison term at Fort Leavenworth.
The dishonorable discharge had no bearing on Lakin's license to practice medicine in Maryland or Colorado. But the Kansas board ruled Lakin's refusal to deploy to Afghanistan "…potentially jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the military troops for with applicant was employed to provide medical care."
The military dispatched another doctor to fill Lakin's mission.
The Oct. 21 hearing about Lakin's medical license lasted just 16 minutes. Lenexa physician Michael J. Beezley kicked off the questioning about Lakin's thoughts on the president.
"So I guess you need to explain the difference between going to Afghanistan in 2004 and going over there after President Obama was elected," said Beezley. "Is that the big kick?"
"Yes," replied Lakin.
Ellsworth Dr. Ronald Whitmer then followed up.
"Do you believe he was a U.S. citizen, President Obama?" he asked.
"I don't know," Lakin replied.
"...the long form of his birth certificate has been publicized," Whitmer said. "What does it take to make you believe that he is a U.S. citizen?"
"I think that I have a question and I don't think that question's been answered, but if this has to do with my medical capabilities...," said Lakin.
"What would make you have that answered?" said Whitmer.
Whitmer kept pressing Lakin.
"Say if and when he's elected again and the Reconciliation Act becomes law, which it already is, and all of a sudden we have 20 million more people who've got healthcare, are you going to refuse those people because this is?" asked Whitmer.
"No. No. No," insisted Lakin. "I was being ordered to a combat zone to, you know, put my life on the line."
Just as Lakin's medical record didn't matter to the board, another doctor's medical record also didn't matter to the panel.
KCTV5's investigation reveals that in 2008, the KSBHA board approved the license of another doctor with a history of medical mistakes and malpractice payouts. One patient died after a drill mishap in the operating room. A surgical error caused repeated electrical shocks to a second patient. And a third patient wasn't even that doctor's patient. The physician didn't notice, ended up performing brain surgery on the wrong man and caused permanent damage.
The board refused our repeated requests for an interview about the decisions it makes and the seeming disparity of these two cases. A renowned University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist, Art Caplan, agreed to weigh in on the situation.
"Political beliefs, I think, should play no role," said Caplan. "Is it going to be a popularity contest that decides what political views you can have as a doctor? Or is it going to be the majority views that decides what political views you can have? Obviously, again - I don't think this is relevant to who practices well."
Lakin agrees with Caplan. "I knew medical boards had a bad reputation. I had hoped this issue would have nothing to do with my practice."
Lakin's only recourse now is a judicial appeal, but he's uncertain that he can afford the costs. He has a book coming out this month detailing his experiences.
In the meantime, looking into the medical background of your doctor is no easy task. You can start with a search of the Kansas or Missouri board websites to see your doctor is under any disciplinary action. To uncover any history prior to practicing in Kansas or Missouri, you will have to file a records request with the state licensing board for your doctor's original state application.
To go to the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, click here.
To go to the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, click here.
To listen to the hearing, click here.
Post Link --> 2:04 PM