Powering Our Military
It’s always open to speculation how wars will be fought in the future. But there is one sure bet. The way that our armed forces are powered will change. Part of the problem is that America consumes a lot of fossil fuels but doesn’t produce that much. What that means it that we would be extermely vulernable to an energy shut off in a future global conflict. The Armed Forces Journal offers two thoughtful pieces on the subject in their current issue. In the first article, John Nagl and Christine Parthemore declare that the military needs to seek to enter a “post-petroleum” era by the year 2040. In another article, Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Glen Butler and Colonel Robert Rice declare that the military needs to look seriously at using more nuclear power to reduce our energy independence on foreign sources. But what helpful alternative seems off the table. Unfortunately, ”nuclear” remains a dirty word in the military. It’s something we better get over soon, if we want to serious about reducing our dependence. Biofuels, thermal, and solar, offer little real promise in the immediate future. An excerpt:
“America consumes more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but has less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. The Defense Department spends approximately $ 20 billion — and the overall nation almost $ 1.23 trillion — on energy each year. Even before the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico brought energy issues to the forefront, there was no doubt that alternative forms of power production are necessary.
Even so, as U.S. armed forces parallel the business world with increasing investments and interest in all things green and “sustainable,” there remains a dirty word many of our military leaders have yet to utter with serious consideration: nuclear. Long the readily dismissed yet oft-misunderstood stepchild of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, nuclear energy today is finally undergoing the beginning of a renaissance in political and entrepreneurial circles. But even as our commander-in-chief and energy secretary deliver guidance and vision for a U.S. future that includes expanded nuclear energy, our service chiefs have yet to embrace the potential watershed opportunity. This is a mistake. Our military forces should take a hard look at the promise of modern nuclear energy technology as integral parts of their long-term plans for installations’ sustainment across the homeland.”
NCAA College Football:BCS Standings Week Ending 11/14/2010 … All 3 Military Academies Bowl Eligible
Last week the BCS Standings for the Top 10 were as follows. However, after this weeks college games there should be some movement if not some closing of the averages.
CURRENT BCS STANDINGS Team BCS Average
1. Oregon .9638
2. Auburn .9611
3. TCU .9259
4. Boise State .8662
5. LSU .8170
6. Stanford .7454
7. Wisconsin .7349
8. Nebraska .7298
9. Ohio State .6613
10. Oklahoma State .6211
The story of this week should be Ducks nearly grounded, TCU defence who and as the Cam Newton Turns … If there is any justice in the BCS and fairness to Boise State, Oregon will take a hit for their poor performance against Cal and TCU’s near loss to unranked San Diego State. Number one Oregon Duck barely defeated the Cal Bears 15 – 13 and should have fallen behind in the 4th quarter had it not been for a missed easy field goal.
Oregon also got a bit of luck: Early in the fourth quarter, Cal kicker Giorgio Tavecchio erased his own 24-yard field goal, which would have put the Golden Bears ahead by one, by taking a stutter step forward before the snap. The junior then missed a 29-yard try on the next play.
Also, #3 TCU just got by San Diego State 40-35, including being behind at one point in the game 14 to 0. Everyone has drooled over the unstoppable TCU defense that did not show up on Saturday. Sorry folks, but if you are going to punish BSU for not having style points against inferior opponents, then you must do the same with the other NCAA football teams. Also, what about the TCU victory over Utah last week that all the coaches and computers were salivating over? So much for that, eh Craig James? The Utah Utes went into South Bend, Indiana this week and was throttled and embarrassed by an unranked and terrible Notre Dame Fighting Irish team 28 -3 . Sorry, but the strength of schedule for TCU had to have taken a hit along with being all that impressed with what appears to be an overrated Utes team.
Stay tuned for this weeks BCS Standings. My BCS poll would look as follows for the top 15. However, I will say this, if the craziness continues to swirl in Auburn with the Cam Newton saga and they play like they did yesterday against Alabama in the Iron Bowl, Auburn will lose and most likely lose their shot to play for a BCS National Championship.
BCS STANDINGS Team BCS Average
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. Boise State
4. TCU
5. Wisconsin
6. Stanford
7. LSU
8. Nebraska
9. Oklahoma State
10. Michigan State
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Arkansas
14. Oklahoma
15. Virginia Tech
However, the real story of college football this year is the Military Academies. This Saturday, ARMY, NAVY and AIR FORCE all won and all three are Bowl eligible in 2010. Air Force has won the Commander in Chief trophy this year as they had defeatedboth Army and Navy this year.How amazing is that all three military academies could be going to a bowl this year.
Afghan President: U.S. Should Reduce Military Presence
Afghanistan’s President, who has become a thorn in America’s side in recent years thanks to allegations of corruption, election fraud, and secret deals with Iran, is now saying that he thinks the United States needs to reduce its military presence in his country:
President Hamid Karzai said on Saturday that the United States must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations in Afghanistan and end the increased U.S. Special Operations forces night raids that aggravate Afghans and could exacerbate the Taliban insurgency.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Karzai said that he wanted American troops off the roads and out of Afghan homes and that the long-term presence of so many foreign soldiers would only worsen the war. His comments placed him at odds with U.S. commander Gen. David H. Petraeus, who has made capture-and-kill missions a central component of his counterinsurgency strategy, and who claims the 30,000 new troops have made substantial progress in beating back the insurgency.
“The time has come to reduce military operations,” Karzai said. “The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan . . . to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life.”
(…)
In an hour-long interview with Post reporters and editors in his office in Kabul, Karzai said he was speaking out not to criticize the United States but in the belief that candor could improve what he called a “grudging” relationship between the countries. He described his own deep skepticism with American policy in Afghanistan – from last year’s presidential election, which he said was manipulated by U.S. officials, to his conviction that government corruption has been caused by billions of American dollars funneled to unaccountable contractors. And he said Afghans have lost patience with the presence of American soldiers in their homes and armored vehicles on their roads.
Karzai has long been publicly critical of civilian casualties at the hands of U.S. and NATO troops and has repeatedly called for curtailing night raids into Afghan homes. Under Petraeus and his predecessor, such raids by U.S. Special Operations troops have increased sharply, to about 200 a month, or six times the number being carried out 18 months ago, said a senior NATO military official, who requested anonymity so that he could speak candidly about the situation. These operations capture or kill their target 50 to 60 percent of the time, the official said.
To American commanders, the nighttime strike missions are a crucial weapon to capture Taliban commanders, disrupt bomb-making networks and weaken the 30,000-man insurgency in Afghanistan. In the past three months, U.S. Special Operations troops have killed or captured 368 insurgent leaders. On each mission, Afghan commandos accompany U.S. troops and Afghan officers work with the Special Operations command at Bagram Airfield to choose targets, military officials said.
“We understand President Karzai’s concerns, but we would not be as far along as we are pressuring the network had it not been for these very precision operations we do at night,” the NATO military official said. “I don’t see any near-term alternative to this kind of operation.”
But Karzai was emphatic that U.S. troops must cease such operations, which he said violate the sanctity of Afghan homes and incite more people to join the insurgency. A senior Afghan official said that Karzai has repeatedly criticized the raids in meetings with Petraeus and that he is seeking veto power over the operations. The Afghan government does not have the type of legal arrangement that the Iraqi government has with U.S. forces to approve particular military operations.
“The raids are a problem always. They were a problem then, they are a problem now. They have to go away,” Karzai said. “The Afghan people don’t like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us.”
Karzai, who said during his inaugural speech last year that he would like to have full Afghan security control by 2014, said that the U.S. military “should and could” draw down its forces next year. He acknowledged that an abrupt withdrawal would be dangerous, but said that American soldiers should confine themselves more to their bases and limit themselves to necessary operations along the Pakistani border. He said he wanted the U.S. government to apply more pressure on Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan while focusing on development projects and civilian assistance in Afghanistan.
Although he did not say how many U.S. troops he would prefer in Afghanistan, Karzai said that at current levels “you cannot sustain that.” There are about 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Karzai’s statements come only a few days after it was reported that the upcoming review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan would result in abandonment of the July 2011 date for the beginning for withdrawal of U.S. forces, extending that period to some point in 2014 or beyond. However, these comments raise the question of just how we can go forward with that policy, or with the current counter-insurgency strategy that is at the heart of the tactics that Karzai is criticizing, without the support of the very government that we’re supposed to be defending. Realistically, it’s unclear how long we can continue our presence in Afghanistan if the government doesn’t want us there, or at least doesn’t want us there in such a visible role.
We’ve gone back and forth over the issue of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan here at OTB for months now, and I think that an observation Dave Schuler made back in May is even more true today:
Counter-insurgency, the strategy we’re currently employing in Afghanistan, is peculiarly unsuited to the country. You can’t establish security for the people of Afghanistan, one of the necessary steps in a counter-insurgency strategy, by securing a few urban areas. If President Obama has been told this by his advisors, he has been cruelly misinformed. Unlike Iraq Afghanistan is overwhelmingly rural with some 80% of its population living out in its countryside. Villages in some provinces aren’t even reachable by road from the provincial capitol. The number of troops required for successful counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is daunting and Afghanistan’s poverty, lack of education, and faction ensure it will be virtually impossible for Afghanistan to supply most of those troops for the foreseeable future.
The Afghan government enjoys less of its people’s confidence that do the American forces there, if anything. It’s in no position to be a partner either in creating the conditions for a transition, contributing to the “civilian surge”, or even taking part in a transition.
Without a stable partner in Kabul — which is something that we simply cannot create on our own — our efforts there are doomed to failure.
One final comment from Karzai’s interview is worth noting:
Karzai said he was grateful to the American people for their support, particularly the flood of taxpayer money for new schools, roads, clinics and other development projects. But he questioned the Obama administration’s motives. Karzai said he has become accustomed to the barrage of criticism against him and his family – allegations including graft and drug trafficking. The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, wrote in a cable last year that Karzai was not an adequate strategic partner and warned against sending troops to bolster such a troubled government.
“If a partner means a silent spectator of events conducted by Washington, if that kind of partner you seek, well, I’m not that partner,” Karzai said. “Nor will be the Afghan people.”
Perhaps we should take that as a warning that our “ally” may not be an ally for long.
Karzai criticizing US military policy and action
Well, talk about an ungrateful puke:
“The time has come to reduce military operations,” Karzai said in the interview. “The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan … to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life.”
Gee, sorry for intruding on your daily life, Hamid. I hope the blood of our soldiers washes out of your national fabric. I hear cold water and vinegar works well.
If this is the way the Afghan leadership feels, fine. Let’s leave. Now. En masse. We’ll pass through Iraq on the way out to clean up that deteriorating situation, and then stop dying for people that appear not to care.
ABC, NBC Relay Cindy McCain’s Support for Gays in Military
On Friday evening, ABC’s World New and the NBC Nightly News both informed viewers that Cindy McCain – wife of Senator John McCain – supports repealing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy on gays in the military. NBC’s Chuck merely mentioned her disagreement with her husband on the issue while noting that Senator McCain "is the guy holding up" the proposed repeal of the law.
But ABC went further in showing a clip of Cindy McCain asserting that homosexuals in America are treated "like second-class citizens." Anchor Diane Sawyer introduced the clip: "And someone we haven’t heard from in a while, Cindy McCain, wife of Senator John McCain, speaking out, disagreeing with her husband who opposes a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. She condemned the government policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military."
Then came a clip of Cindy McCain: "Our government treats the LGBT community like second-class citizens."
Chicago police spotted jihadi running children through military drills in a park
Not exactly touch football. “Chicago: Front line in war on terror,” by Annie Sweeney and Hal Dardick for the Chicago Tribune, November 11 (thanks to Esther):
On a summer day last year, David Coleman Headley, like many fathers, took his children to a Chicago park.
There, Headley ran his children through military drills, including maneuvers such as rolling into a shooting position.
The observations — by an officer who had received counterterrorism training — became part of the case that was built against Headley, who four months later was charged in the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai and with planning attacks in Denmark, according to law enforcement officials.
Authorities say the case highlights the dramatic shift in local policing over the past decade. Chicago police are no longer just tracking drug and gang organizations but also terrorists bent on launching attacks here or abroad.
New investigative teams have been created to generate tips about potential threats and also investigate them. Chicago has an officer permanently assigned to Washington for counterterrorism, and thousands of others are trained to spot terrorists, getting briefings on organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba….
Chilling Report: The Legal, Political and Military Path of Shariah in the United States Today
[Editor’s Note: This article appeared first at Right Side News]
NEW YORK CITY (November 9, 2010) This past September, the Center for Security Policy issued an abbreviated report titled Shariah – The Threat to America, An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Report of Team B II. In a press conference today, CSP is releasing the full, unexpurgated study, and will have four of the authors on hand to discuss it. A great summary of both versions can be read here.
The “Team B” name was coined for a 1976 critique of U.S. détente policy toward the Soviet Union. A group of highly-regarded analysts, “Team B,” found the assumptions of “Team A,” the détente crowd, to be fatally flawed—i.e. that the Soviets could be placated by accommodative policies—and that by naïvely misreading the enemy, détente was actually exposing the U.S. to lethal danger. This later became the foundation for the Reagan Doctrine.
The Team B II report continues this tradition, this time evaluating U.S. policy toward radical Muslims living within the U.S. The 372 page document addresses in detail a largely unrecognized but deadly Islamist infiltration, its methodologies, its goals, its frightening successes and what must be done to stem this tide.
It is impossible to underestimate the importance of this report. It has put together some of the best minds in foreign policy, military policy and domestic law enforcement. It is a thorough, sober, articulate exposé that overlooks no subtleties of argument, yet is written in crystal clear prose easily grasped by layman and expert alike.
While our Nation has been battling violent Muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, their brethren have been quietly settling in the United States for over sixty years. The strategies embedded in this stealth jihad can be summed up in one word: Shariah.
Shariah is a Muslim terms with which most Americans were unfamiliar prior to 9-11. It has been popularly misconstrued in the public mind as some kind of Islamic religious doctrine. Now, having witnessed this “religious doctrine” played out across our TV screens with the videoed beheadings of Nicholas Berg and journalist Daniel Pearle, reported stoning deaths of female rape victims for marital infidelity, honor killings, genital mutilation and other such vicious, abject lunacy, we have been forced to admit that it can be just a wee bit harsh as religious teachings go.
Team B II however, explains that it is not merely or even primarily religious law. Instead, shariah, or “the path,” is a complete “legal-political-military doctrine,” which they identify as, “The preeminent totalitarian threat of our time.”
The specific objectives are spelled out in a 1991 document seized from the Annandale, Virginia home of Muslim Brotherhood member Ismail Elbarasse. The document, An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, makes clear that while the Brotherhood was using peaceful means, its ends were the destruction of America, to be replaced with a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by shariah. Point 4 under “Process of Settlement” states:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions…(emphasis added.)
Another document described the phases of stealth jihad. It seems we are very close to the last phase:
Phase One: Phase of discreet and secret establishment of leadership.
Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities (It greatly succeeded in implementing this stage). It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government, gaining religious institutions and embracing senior scholars. Gaining public support and sympathy. Establishing a shadow government (secret) within the Government.
Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. (Currently in progress).
Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. (It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach). Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. (It has noticeable activities in this regard.)
Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their [sic] Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.
These documents, which came to light in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing trial, are impossible to misinterpret, yet Team B II shows that the prevailing political culture has sought to placate American Islamists, turned a blind eye to their alarming activities and completely ignored the implications of shariah. In so doing, they have abdicated their Constitutional duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies; foreign and domestic…”
I spoke with both Team B II members Andrew McCarthy and Frank Gaffney for this article. McCarthy is a former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney and was lead prosecutor against World Trade Center bombing mastermind, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. He is Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute and Contributing Editor, National Review magazine. Gaffney is a former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and (Acting) President, Center for Security Policy. He is also host of Secure Freedom Radio, widely published writer and lead author of War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World
Our discussions centered on how to effectively tackle this problem. Both men agreed that we need to embark on a major campaign to educate the American people. Islamist infiltration of the U.S. has been ongoing since the days of the Eisenhower administration. The Islamists have hidden behind First Amendment religious freedom arguments and have been effective at intimidating law enforcement and the political structure against monitoring their activities too closely.
But they haven’t had to try too hard. Many politicians of both parties have bent over backwards to accommodate them. McCarthy pointed to articles by Shariah co-author Patrick Poole, who has documented some particularly egregious examples:
- The picture above shows Sheikh Kifah Mustapha (front row, second from left), a known agent of the terrorist group, Hamas, getting a tour of the FBI’s top secret National Counterterrorism Center as part of their “Muslim outreach” this past September. Mustapha raised money for Hamas as late as 2009 and is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing case.
- Mustapha was appointed this year as the first certified Muslim chaplain for the Illinois State Police. The appointment was revoked when the ISP were informed of his background.
- Al Qaeda Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemen-based American cleric linked to the Fort Hood shooter and subsequent terrorist plots, who recently proclaimed open-season on Americans, led a prayer meeting in Congress for the Congressional Muslim Staff Association shortly after 9-11. He also had lunch at the Pentagon.
- In 2006, U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) complained to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that Islamic scholar Anwar Hajjaj had faced “unwarranted scrutiny” when re-entering the U.S. at Kennedy Airport. Hajjaj heads the Taibah International Aid Associaton and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, both tagged as financial supporters of al Qaeda.
- Hajjaj also led prayers for the Congressional Muslim Staff Association, courtesy its founder, Jameel Johnson, Rep. Meeks then Chief of Staff.
- Johnson organized an Islamic conference that was cancelled by the House Sergeant-at-Arms due to terrorism ties of scheduled speakers.
- One of the scheduled speakers for the House event scheduled another conference in the Ohio State House. This one went off without a hitch, funded by taxpayers.
- The National Counterterrorism Center recruited a Muslim “De-radicalization expert,” Yasir Qadh, who was on the terrorist watch list.
- Muslim Students Association at Ohio State University was found to be funded by an Islamic terrorist financing group.
- Muslim student groups throughout the US are being trained by radical Muslim Brotherhood activists.
- A New Jersey judge ruled that a Muslim man may beat and rape his wife at will because shariah allows it. The victim’s plea for a restraining order in this case was denied. Fortunately the ruling was eventually reversed.
- Recently the state of Oklahoma voted to ban consideration of Shariah in any court proceedings. An Oklahoma judge has issued a restraining order preventing the law from taking effect following a lawsuit by CAIR.
- According to Andrew McCarthy, recently appointed Supreme Court judge Elena Kagan promoted shariah as dean of Harvard Law School. She helped develop a Saudi-funded program at the school called the “Islamic Finance Project,” specifically created to introduce shariah compliance to the U.S. finance sector.
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed a six-year ban on visits to the U.S. by Tariq Ramadan. Tariq is the son of founding Muslim Brotherhood member Said Ramadan and since returning has been aggressively pursuing civilization jihad. (B II Report, p. 112)
- According to Paul Williams at Atlas Shrugs: “special agents of the [FBI] are now compelled to undergo sensitivity training sessions so that they will not offend practitioners of Islam—even radical Islam—in the course of a criminal investigation.”
These are but a tiny subset of examples showing the extent to which Muslim radicals and their ideas have penetrated our legal, educational and governmental institutions to the highest levels. According to McCarthy, the Muslim Brotherhood-founded Muslim Students Association has chapters on 300 college campuses.
Political correctness has prevented many within the political/legal infrastructure from carefully examining the dangerous nature of these people and their designs, while official ignorance and/or Leftist ideology have allowed the Islamists to hide behind phony First Amendment religious freedom arguments.
McCarthy says however, that it is incorrect to consider Shariah as an expression of religious belief. Rather, Shariah is a complete system of law, dictating all aspects of life for Muslims. In that sense it has no legitimate religious defense. McCarthy made a point in our interview of stressing the supremacy of U.S. law. The Team B II Report states (pp. 226-227):
For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America – even through stealthy means or democratic processes – without violating the
Constitution’s Article 6 Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the land.”
For another, those who advocate the imposition of shariah in America must be considered ineligible to serve in the military, or hold state or federal office, insofar as Article 6 requires them to swear an “oath…to support this Constitution” – not any other legal code, like shariah. The same disqualifier would appear to govern with respect to immigrants or would-be naturalized citizens.
Lastly, advocacy of and engagement in jihad [holy war], of even the dawa [stealth jihad] variety, for the purpose of imposing shariah, supplanting the Constitution and overthrowing the government it mandates would – as a practical matter – constitute a felony violation of the U.S. Code’s prohibitions on treason, sedition and subversive activities.
This section explicitly recognizes that the Islamic offensive is criminal in nature. And the Team B II Report concludes that, “Virtually every provision of the U.S. Constitution can be juxtaposed with shariah practices that are in violent conflict with America’s foundational laws.”
McCarthy says it can be dealt with directly through vigorous enforcement of U.S. law. We talked, for example about the Jamaat al-Fuqra training camps around the country. These camps could be shut down overnight if we had the political will. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, one was. But other than that, and despite al-Fuqra’s known terrorist ties and strong evidence of illegal activities here, the camps have been left largely alone.
McCarthy stressed that Congressional hearings could serve the multiple purpose of exposing appeasers while concurrently educating the public about the magnitude of the problem. It could also serve as a starting point for criminal investigations.
Gaffney takes that one step further. He and other Team members assert that official acquiescence to Islamic radicals may in some cases constitute misprision of treason. This term refers to circumstances where one is aware that treason is occurring but does nothing to report it, essentially making the person an accessory to the crime.
I am with Gaffney on this one. For example, Hillary Clinton knows full well what Tariq Ramadan is up to. Using her position to allow someone like him into the U.S. is at best, misprision. The Report contains a case study that focuses on Obama administration Counter-terrorism Czar John Brennan (pp. 252-257). Brennan personifies the U.S. government’s increasingly servile and pandering attitude toward radical Islamic organizations and individuals. In so doing he sends an unmistakable message to domestic Islamic terrorists that the U.S. government is not inclined to challenge them. By default he is also sending a message to U.S. law enforcement to lay off. As Gaffney delicately put it, Brennan is at best, guilty of willful ignorance. At best.
Gaffney also adds that it is critical to recognize the role played by the radical left in promoting radical Islam. They are not only aware of the Islamists true goals, but are actively aiding and abetting them in their efforts to destroy our country. David Horowitz discussed this in his book, Unholy Alliance, Radical Islam and the American Left. This filthy network of traitors needs to be exposed and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Yet at this time, many sympathizers, like Hillary, occupy positions of power within our government.
Gaffney and Co. will be delivering copies of Team B II’s Report to the new Congress. Perhaps they will do the right thing and begin holding hearings on the dangers we face from radical Islam and the Americans who are supporting it.
It is way past time.
Aung San Suu Kyi: Will Burmese Military Junta Free Her Tomorrow?
Burmese leader Ms Aung San Suu Kyi, 65, who has spent 15 of the past 21 years under house arrest, could be released tomorrow (Saturday) by Myanmar’s military junta. The Burmese junta says it is preparing for the release of Nobel laureate Suu Kyi after international condemnation (including president Barack Obama’s recent strong remarks) of last weekend’s election and fears that a delay could spark demonstrations, reports The Australian.
” ‘We haven’t got any instructions from superiors for her release yet,’ a government official told AFP yesterday. ‘But we are preparing security plans for 13 November.’ Trenchant international criticism of Burma’s first general elections in 20 years is believed to have helped Ms Suu Kyi’s chances of freedom. Analysts predicted the regime would use her release to deflect attention from claims of vote fraud and ballot box stuffing.
“Her lawyers said she was due to be released on Saturday, and many believe that voter frustration could explode into civil unrest if she remains locked up. Several have formally complained to the election commission, and the military-aligned National Unity Party is preparing legal action. Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy convincingly won the 1990 election, but the result was annulled by the ruling military regime.
“More recently the NLD was formally dissolved and it boycotted the elections. Nyan Win, NLD spokesman and one of Ms Suu Kyi’s lawyers, said the party had already listed members who would speak to her after her release. ‘We will draw up a plan for the future after she meets with these people,’ he was quoted as saying, adding the NLD had not been told when she would be released.” More here…
Betwa Sharma wrote in The Huffington Post: “Even as President Barack Obama endorsed India’s candidacy for the U.N. Security Council, he scolded New Delhi for not being tough on its neighbor Burma that has just pulled off dodgy elections, which are also the first in nearly two decades. ‘Faced with such gross violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of the international community, especially leaders like the United States and India, to condemn it,’ Obama told India’s parliament on Monday.
” ‘If I can be frank, in international fora, India has often shied away from these issues,’ he said. For those who give little credence to the U.S. preaching on human rights — having supported a fair share dictators and rogue regimes — there are many activists and analysts that have also echoed similar rebuke.
“Nobel laureate in economics, Amartya Sen, for instance, described Indo-China behavior in Burma as ‘exceptionally crude and valuationally gross. When our power to influence the world was zero, we spent our time lecturing the world on morality. And when we get a bit of power, although not as much as China, then we completely abdicated that responsibility,’ said Sen recently at John Hopkins University.” More here…
The Independent reports that anticipation about the possible release of Ms Suu Kyi was further fuelled by a report earlier this week by the Agence France-Presse, quoting an unidentified government official who said she would be set free. Speculation mounted further yesterday when it was reported that one of her sons, Kim Aris, had finally been granted a visa to travel to Burma to see his mother for the first time in a decade. However, the purported source of that report, Nyan Win, said he could not confirm that the visa had been granted. More here…
Photo above: A Burma democracy activist in Bangkok holds up a poster showing Aung San Suu Kyi
DADT STUDY LEAK: Repeal Will Not Undermine Military During Time Of War
Last month, NBC’s Richard Engel reported that the Pentagon’s Working Group study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had found that a majority of American troops would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers, suggesting that repeal wouldn’t be nearly as disruptive as some conservative critics have suggested.
Now, two sources who have seen a copy of the survey — which is scheduled for release on December 1 — are telling the Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe and Greg Jaffe that repeal will not disrupt the military during a time of war:
More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report’s authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them. […]
The document totals about 370 pages and is divided into two sections. The first section explores whether repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would harm unit readiness or morale. It cites the findings of a survey sent over the summer to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, a separate questionnaire sent to about 150,000 military spouses, the responses submitted to an anonymous online dropbox seeking comments, and responses from focus-group participants.
The second part of the report presents a plan for ending enforcement of the ban. It is not meant to serve as the military’s official instruction manual on the issue but could be used if military leaders agreed, one of the sources said.
The report, which the service chiefs received last week, also notes that while a majority of service members have signaled “no strong objections, a significant minority is opposed to serving alongside openly gay troops,” “40 percent of the Marine Corps is concerned about lifting the ban, according to one of the people familiar with the report.” On Saturday, Gen. James Amos, the new commandant of the Marine Corps, echoed this sentiment, telling reporters that repeal carried “risk.” Amos has also previously stated that the Marines’ sense of “discipline” and “leadership” are “going to carry the day for us should the law get changed” — despite any opposition from the ranks.
According to the Posts’ sources, “[t]he report also concludes that gay troops should not be put into a special class for equal employment or discrimination purposes” and “recommends few, if any, changes to policy covering military housing and benefits, because the military must abide by the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does not recognize same-sex marriage.”
The report does not anticipate “a large ‘coming out’ by gay men and lesbians serving in uniform” once the policy is repealed.
Boehner to spurn military planes for travel home
Washington (CNN) – House Republican Leader John Boehner said Wednesday that he plans to continue to fly commercial airplanes to and from his Ohio home even after he becomes House speaker in January-a change from Speaker Pelosi’s current use of military planes.
“I have talked to our security folks about the security that’s involved in my new role. But over the last 20 years I have flown back and forth to my district on a commercial aircraft and I am going to continue to do that,” Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill.
When Nancy Pelosi became speaker in early 2007 she began flying home to California on military aircraft, following the practice of previous speakers, like her GOP predecessor Dennis Hastert, who used Pentagon planes to go home to Illinois. Republicans criticized Pelosi at the time, accusing her of wasting of taxpayer money and requesting a much larger plane than others used.
But House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood, who handles security for House leaders, released a statement at the time responding to that criticism, explaining that he had requested larger military planes for Pelosi’s cross-country trips. In February 2007, Livingood said, “The fact that Speaker
Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable.”
As the top GOP Leader, Boehner already has a U.S. Capitol Police security detail that travels with him, but he when he takes the gavel as speaker, his security, as Pelosi’s did, will grow larger. The speaker of the house is second in line to the president of the United States.
