Sequestration: The Disarming of the United States of America

[American Patriot]

First to go will be contractors:
Military pay is exempt from sequestration. However, DoD and budget analysts expect widespread furloughs of DoD civilians to pay for military operations.

[vector7]

December 5, 2012

Contractors say sequester will
'shatter' security plans

By Kristina Wong

Key defense contractors said Monday that
automatic federal spending cuts set to begin next month would hamstring their ability to develop critical machinery, equip military personnel and help maintain national security. David Langstaff, president and chief executive
officer of TASC Inc., said it would be "irresponsible" to allow the spending cuts, known as sequestration, to take effect Jan. 2. "Sequestration ... will shatter our ability to execute the U.S. national security strategy," Mr. Langstaff said during a panel discussion with three other defense industry CEOs at the National Press Club. The defense contractors urged lawmakers to reach an agreement on a framework to avert sequestration, which would cut $1.2 trillion from the federal budget over the next decade.

The Defense Department would lose $500 billion over that period, beginning with a more than $50 billion cut to its 2013 budget. "Cuts at that level are irresponsible at almost any way you look at it," Mr. Langstaff said. Wes Bush, president and CEO of Northrop Grumman Corp., said that "getting to a framework
agreement that would allow the nation to move
forward is critical." Dawne S. Hickton, president and CEO of RTI International Metals Inc., said the automatic spending cuts would curtail progress on programs that have been years in the making. "What we're manufacturing in our plants today is going in a military program two or three years down the road," Ms. Hickton said. In addition, the spending cuts would hurt defense companies' ability to recruit talented personnel and negatively affect the jobs of tens of thousands of defense workers, the contractors said.

Defense companies planned to notify employees of impending layoffs in preparation for the spending cuts before Election Day, but the White House asked the companies to delay that action, saying it would cover the cost of potential lawsuits. "Do federal employees get furloughed on Jan. 2 or Jan. 3? Nobody really knows," Mr. Bush said.

"We can't stand here today and predict what will happen, even though it is just a few weeks away, because we will each have to make those decisions based on the environment at the time." Sequestration was designed as a mechanism to force lawmakers to craft a budget deal, but negotiations have stalled over disagreements about increasing taxes and cutting programs. The defense contractors urged lawmakers to compromise on both issues.

http://mobile.securityinfowatch.com/...security-plans

[Ryan Ruck]

Okay, I know this sequestration stuff is deadly serious but sometimes you've got to laugh to keep from crying.

Yeah, it's one of those Hitler videos...

[Ryan Ruck]

Sequester Cuts: Navy to Ground Blue Angels

February 7, 2013

As the sequester cuts Obama signed into law in August 2011 draw closer to implementation, the Navy is making plans to ground the Blue Angels during the latter half of 2013.

This was revealed by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert last week, when he sent out a memo showing the Navy's plan for complying with the cuts.

Grounding the Blue Angels for half a year will entail canceling 30 shows and will save approximately $20 million.

Greenert says the Navy is already making cuts "because of Congress's failures to pass...spending bills last year," and if sequester hits it will cost them an additional $4 billion for 2013 alone.

Sequester was the risk Obama was willing to take to raise the debt ceiling in 2011. Now, it is posed to cost us the Blue Angels.

[vector7]

Pentagon informs Congress of plans to furlough 800,000 civilians

By Jeremy Herb - 02/20/13 11:16 AM ET

The Pentagon notified Congress on Wednesday it will be furloughing its civilian workforce of 800,000 employees if sequestration goes into effect March 1.

Defense officials have warned lawmakers that sequestration will devastate the military and lead to a hollow force, but the civilian furloughs will be one of the first major impacts felt by the across-the-board cuts.

The Pentagon furloughs will affect civilians across the country. Pentagon officials have said that civilians could face up to 22 days of furloughs, one per week, through the end of the fiscal year in September. The employees would receive 30 days notice before being furloughed.

“We are doing everything possible to limit the worst effects on DOD personnel — but I regret that our flexibility within the law is extremely limited,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wrote in a message to the department. “The president has used his legal authority to exempt military personnel funding from sequestration, but we have no legal authority to exempt civilian personnel funding from reductions.”

The Joint Chiefs also testified before both the House and Senate last week to lay out the dangers of sequestration, as the Pentagon has taken a much more proactive approach to the cuts than when they were set to hit in January.

The potential for furloughs was one of the few things DOD officials announced before the Jan. 2 deadline, which was delayed two months in the “fiscal-cliff” deal.

More from The Hill:
• Obama under pressure to resume talks on arms treaty that is opposed by NRA
• NRA ads hit vulnerable Democratic senators
• Obama renews call for $50B in new spending on roads, bridges
• Kerry slams critics of foreign aid in first major speech as secretary
• Unions hope US-EU trade talks can be lever to change labor laws


President Obama on Tuesday spoke to first responders who he also warned could be furloughed due to sequestration. He urged Republicans to compromise and stop the cuts.

Obama will be on the road again next week with campaign-style events arguing that Republicans are at fault for the cuts, while the GOP blames the White House for the sequester.

“Republicans in Congress face a simple choice,” the president said Tuesday. “Are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and healthcare and national security and all the jobs that depend on them? Or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations?”

But Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in response to the Pentagon furloughs that Obama has yet to put forward a plan to stop the across-the-board cuts, while the House has passed an alternative.

“I agree with the secretary of Defense that the impact of the president’s sequester would be devastating to our military,” Boehner said in a statement. “That’s why the House has acted twice to replace the president’s sequester with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect our national security, and it’s why I’ve been calling on the president for more than a year to press his Democratic-controlled Senate to do the same.”

The back-and-forth is part of a blame game between the White House and congressional Republicans as the cuts are less than two weeks out, with no apparent movement to stop them before March 1.

Preparations for cuts from sequestration and the department's budget uncertainty are continuing in the defense industry.

BAE Systems notified 3,600 employees Tuesday that they could be laid off over a loss of work from the Navy, due primarily to the Pentagon facing a continuing resolution.

Bill Clifford, president of BAE Systems Ship Repair, told Ship Repair employees that the notifications under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act were going out to employees at four BAE locations in Norfolk, Va., Mayport, Fla., San Diego, Calif., and Hawaii.

“We do not take these decisions lightly, and we regret the anxiety it causes our employees and their families. I also recognize this news is unsettling, but rest assured we are working closely with our Navy customer and members of Congress to mitigate the impact of these proposed reductions,” Clifford wrote.

The WARN Act notices were a major political fight between Congress and the Obama administration during the 2012 campaign. After defense contractors threatened sending out mass notices before sequestration, the administration told contractors not to issue them 60 days before the cuts took effect — and also took the step of promising to cover layoff costs if contractors had to immediately fire workers.

In this case, BAE appears to be issuing the notices with enough time that it will follow the WARN law and not incur extra costs.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill...lian-workforce

[American Patriot]

the military isn't going to be cut. The men fighting will still get paid. Active duty will be FINE. They MUST pay them if they have to borrow the money someplace or pull it out of Congress' pay, lol

And the Civilians? In my opinion they can all go take a long fucking vacation and get out of our contractors hair and we'll do a damned better job.

Looks like we (At MDA) will be ok for awhile... at least another few months - and then there's a contract negotiation going on right now and money has already been allocated for that so it will go on. IF it goes through, we're good til 2014 - at least most of us will be.

[Phil Fiord]

I have been doing a lot of reading of peoples real life stories about working in a government contractor environment especially around DC. It seems some companies that do this type of work hire more people than they need in order to pad the bill to the fed. The reports on payroll reflect busy workers getting paid for their work done. Yes, it gets done but with enormous downtime. The net effect being workers have little to do and spend more time writing online as that is what they do stay boredom. Of course, some read books and other tasks of a personal nature.

Now, add what I heard this morning on the Mike Church show. He had a guy on who knows that industry and he explained how it is a waste. For some companies a worker makes 100k/yr. The company bills 300k/yr to the fed with 100k to the company, and the other 100k to overhead. Waste? Yup.

Still that guy had a point in one respect. For items like defense weapons, you do not want the government to make those as anything government touches fails. Leave such things to the companies that do that.

[American Patriot]

Well, I can tell you we're supposed to have 5 people - we have three. We're not on call anymore, and if stuff breaks, we don't come in to fix it until the next duty day - which includes when things break over the weekend, they stay down until I arrive.

[vector7]

Disturbing Report: Veterans are receiving letters from VA prohibiting the ownership or purchase of firearms... Developing...

February 20, 2013



Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent.

This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

-- Michael Connelly, J.D.

Executive Director, United States Justice Foundation​

Follow Us: @redflagnews on Twitter

Get the RedFlag app today for Apple and Android devices...
​

[American Patriot]

Time to arm the civilians.

We don't have a military.

Obama is trying to turn this country into a flaming mess.

[Malsua]

Well, NJ passed 22 anti-gun bills though the assembly. Most will get through the senate, Christie will sign some of them, I'm sure.

New York and California are doing the same.

They want to legislate away your ability to overthrow them.

It's a multi-faceted approach.

I truly believe that the democrats have been conspiring in democrat strongholds to enact Obama legislation on the state level since it's going to fail on the national level.

This is just another facet of the plan. They want to eliminate as many people as possible from every angle.

[Phil Fiord]

That makes sense, Mal. By going to state level, it gives an argument to "that is what you conservatives wanted".

[American Patriot]

Ok... I havent had time to get on here since Friday.

On Friday evening I was listening to Levin.

He had a guy on who happened to be here in COLORADO when the bills were put on the floor at the Capitol in Denver

He stated clearly that the WHITE HOUSE was interfering the state processes by calling the Democraps and telling them "If you don't vote FOR THOSE BILLS we will organized people to run against you when your seat is up.

I was fucking livid about it and of course wrote some more nasty notes.

[AGEUSAF]

Well in my corner I haven't heard anything solid about our situation lol. Managment (GS-15) and our Colonel send out stuff to us on a weekly basis. A few weeks ago the email we got from the Colonel, I could tell he was stunned at his budget he was going to get so changes are coming for us no matter what because our new budget is much more modest from what he was saying without saying it. As far as sequestration goes they send us scoops after they hit regular news LMAO. So they are alot of help but they are in leadership and they seem to be like most smile at you all the way till the end when they know everything. I assume 22 days furlough and we will fake our 24/7 service by having electricians (me) do operator jobs.

If this happens and everyone makes it all work doing someone elses job part of the time. They will probably say well why not make it law that the new full time work week should be 32 instead of 40 after all everything went fine since we have been doing it all summer.

Who knows I will do what I do until they say do it somewhere else lol.

[AGEUSAF]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...tails/1931051/


The USA Today link has the power points attached from the Air Force, Army and Navy of the potential cuts and effected areas state by state with fancy graphics and maps, pictures of eagles and troops hugging kids :-).

[Ryan Ruck]

Special Ops Poised to Take $1 Billion Hit from Sequestration

February 22, 2013

America’s elite special operations forces are poised to take a hit if the sequestration defense cuts, coupled with another continuing budget resolution that ties the military’s hands in directing funds to needed areas, happen in a week.

It would be inglorious treatment for the warfighters such as those who got Osama bin Laden and puts the readiness of and support for the country’s most elite soldiers at risk when al-Qaeda’s operations are growing in Africa and the U.S. prepares to withdraw combat troops from Afghanistan.

U.S. Special Operations Commander Adm. William H. McRaven warned late last month that his command will be faced with a $1 billion budget shortfall thanks to the continuing resolution and sequestration, both up for debate and 11th-hour negotiations when Congress returns next week from the Presidents Day recess.

“We will contribute just like the services do,” McRaven said at the National Defense Industrial Association Special Operations conference in Washington, adding he needed to see more details before saying exactly how operations will be affected.

“We don’t know what sequestration is going to look like, but there is an expectation that it is clearly going to be an additional bill on top of that,” he said.

The chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee at the House Armed Services Committee told PJM tonight that he’s had discussions with McRaven and is concerned about special ops having the resources they need.

“Special ops are what they call the tip of the spear folks — they are the most highly skilled warriors anywhere in the world,” Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) said. “They go into the most dangerous places.”

And they need continual training as well as top-notch support to drop them into operations and pull them out if necessary.

“The prefect example is the effort to kill Osama bin Laden,” Wittman said — “a very, very complex mission” with longtime planning and training and complicated logistics.

Even with budget cuts, he noted, “special operations are not going to say ‘no’ to that mission — we have an obligation to provide them all that they need.”

That means not only stopping $500 billion in sequestration cuts — the Pentagon takes the brunt while an equally large chunk of spending cuts is split among non-defense discretionary spending — on top of $487 billion in cuts not tied to sequestration, but tailoring a continuing resolution that gives the service branch chiefs discretion on where to direct funds.

“We want to make sure that we reduce spending, but we have to do it in a thoughtful way — not one that ties the hands of military leaders,” Wittman said.

The Senate Armed Services Committee was warned at a Feb. 12 hearing on the impact of sequestration that special ops readiness will take a “devastating” hit.

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who chairs the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee and whose state is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, expressed concern about the hit to special ops particularly with the approaching Afghanistan withdrawal.

“And I understand the combined impact of these issues could cut approximately 23 percent in the special ops operations and maintenance accounts and 9 percent in their investment accounts. essentially returning the command to fiscal year 2007 spending levels, or $2.4 billion below the budget request for fiscal year ’13,” Hagan said.

“The reason the SOCOM gets hit especially hard is the same reason that General Odierno and the Army get hit especially hard. Namely that they have a lot of funding in the overseas contingency operations account. That gets hit, too, by sequester,” Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter told the committee. “If sequestration is averted and we get back on course, special operation forces will actually grow slightly, I think from 65,000 to 72,000.”

“If sequestration occurs in the magnitude we’re discussing, everybody will be affected. Because we have to maintain a joint force of conventional and unconventional capability,” said chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said reductions in intelligence capability, training, and aviation training will all affect Special Operations Forces.

“If ever the force is so degraded and so unready, and then we’re asked to use it, it would be immoral to use the force unless it’s well-trained, well-led and well-equipped,” Dempsey said.

“Are we on the path to creating that dilemma?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked.

“We are on that path,” Dempsey confirmed.

“So please understand that, colleagues: We’re on the path of requiring our military in the future to protect us in a circumstance where they know they don’t have the ability given what we’re doing to the training, the readiness of the force,” Graham said.

All of the military leaders at the witness table agreed.

“The joint chiefs are responsible for balancing global responsibilities, for looking at ways to do things sometimes directly ourselves, sometimes through partners in a region,” Dempsey said. “And I think what you’re hearing today is that our ability to do that is going to be called into doubt, given the effects of sequestration.”

On Tuesday, President Obama travels to Newport News, Va., to visit a shipbuilding facility and make another speech against sequestration — highlighting “the devastating impact that the sequester will have on jobs and middle class families if Congressional Republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester by March 1,” according to the White House.

It comes as Republican frustration has steadily mounted over Obama’s focus on the domestic impact of cuts with scant attention to the hacksaw that could be taken to military readiness and national security.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said Thursday on Fox he finds it incredible that, after a year and a half of warnings sounded by his committee, “the White House, last week, woke up and says, oh gee, we’re going to have sequestration.”

“So, this just boggles my mind hearing him talk like this like, all of a sudden now, we’ve got a problem. And, I don’t know where they’ve been. The secretary of defense understood. We held five hearings over a year ago about the impact of sequestration on the military,” the chairman said. “The secretary said it would be like shooting ourselves in the head. All of the other, the chairman of the joint chiefs, everybody that testified before the committee told how devastating it would be.”

McKeon said Army Secretary John McHugh told him “if the sequestration goes in full bore and the CR continues through the rest of the year,” the department would have “to take it all out of operations and maintenance.”

“That’s the thing that has the most concerned. Our troops are not going to be getting the training they need to carry out their missions and return home safely,” McKeon said. “I know that they’re not getting the training now that they did a year ago. And I know within a few months, it’s going to be cut back even more drastically. People don’t understand that we’ve already cut a half trillion dollars out of defense. What we’re talking about is an additional half trillion.”

Wittman, whose 1st District includes part of Newport News, said he hopes Obama have a light-bulb moment of what’s at stake with his visit to the naval region.

“I welcome him to go there so he understands what this will mean to our nation’s strategic needs,” he said. “I hope that that engagement is there and that he understands it.”

“But it also requires leadership,” Wittman said. “His thoughts and ideas — specifics — not just these general terms.”

[Ryan Ruck]

From Top Gun To Risky Business: Budget Cuts To Force Navy To Shutter Four Active Aircraft Carriers

Budget cuts would force Navy to shut down four active aircraft carriers

February 20, 2013

The U.S. Navy plans to shut down four of its active aircraft carriers in one of the worst-case scenarios presented to Congress by the service since the debate on budget cuts heated up this winter.

The Navy previously announced a delay in deploying the carrier USS Harry Truman to the Middle East, plus a stop in the refueling and overhauling of the nuclear-powered USS Abraham Lincoln and a delay in repairing the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

In an 11-page briefing sent to Congress and obtained by The Washington Times, the Navy said it will be forced to “shut down at various intervals” the USS John C. Stennis, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, USS Ronald Reagan and the Roosevelt.

The Navy’s active carrier fleet already has been reduced to 10 vessels because of the retirement of the USS Enterprise in November. Removing more carriers from action will leave the Navy unable to surge a large number of ships and strike fighters to a hot spot like the Persian Gulf.

Suspending all operations on four carriers means the Navy also would close four of its nine carrier air wings — the F-18s that project power overseas.

The Navy also is canceling, instead of delaying, the deployment of the USS Bataan amphibious assault ship.

Scores of ships will not be repaired, the Navy’s version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet will not be tested, and at least 15 demonstrations by the Blue Angels precision flying team will be canceled across the country.

The Navy predicts that by October, units in the states will take a full nine months to get ready for deployments “due to maintenance and training curtailments.”

The four services, in testimony to Congress and in memos, are pressuring lawmakers to reach a deal to avert $46 billion in automatic cuts, known as sequestration, between March 1 and Sept. 30.

To underscore the impact on legislator’s home districts, the Navy briefing lists curtailed projects by regions and states, such as California, the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, Florida and Hawaii.

[vector7]

Obama is setting us up

Michael Oberndorf, RPA Sunday, February 24, 2013

In the days since the November elections, the pace of Obama’s destruction of America has increased significantly. Now that the Marxists have secured the executive branch for another four years – thanks to massive voter fraud, a cowardly Republican Party, and a couple of million self-righteous fools who refused to vote, apparently preferring a Muslim Marxist over a moderately conservative Mormon – Obama and his lawless unindicted co-conspirators have thrown caution to the wind.

Every day, new outrages are proposed, all aimed at destruction of the Middle Class and America as a free, capitalist, constitutional republic. However, in our efforts to recognize and combat the internal attacks – the tax increases, the land grabs, the granting of citizenship to illegal invaders, the undermining of private property rights, etc. ad nauseam – we are failing to notice the external threats that Obama’s policies are abetting. The re-militarization of Russia and their much more aggressive and threatening attitude is of great concern, but there are other, much less publicized ones we need to be aware of.

China has made trillions of dollars off us, thanks to massive interest payments on the uncontrolled borrowing by the Obama administration, and from a huge and ever increasing trade deficit, where they export to us way, way more than we export to them. During the Obama “presidency,” China surpassed America as the world’s leading economic power. They have used this money to radically increase the size and sophistication of their military, to the point where it is very questionable whether we could do anything should they move to start taking over other Asian countries, like the Philippines, Japan, or South Korea.

This is not an irrational fear, either. The dispute with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands appears to be a test by China to see who will do what as they aggressively move to take territory claimed by Japan. Chinese admirals, who never speak without government direction, have threatened World War III to “protect” Iran. But ultimately, it is the good ol’ USA that is their target. Does anyone remember when Russia was selling off military equipment after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and China bought every last one of their attack subs that were specifically designed to target the US Navy? Since at least the 1990s, the Democrats have aided and abetted China in the upgrading of their military capabilities – remember the technology that Clinton sold them that allowed them to get their missiles to actually hit what they aimed at? Obama has been carrying on this tradition, allowing formerly restricted advanced technology to be sold to the Chinese military. And just a reminder, the Panama Canal, vital to our national security, is, thanks to the Democrats, run by a company – Hutchison-Whampoa – with ties to the Chinese Military, as is a port facility 50 miles off the East Coast in the Bahamas that has an 11,000 foot-long runway, capable of handling the largest of military aircraft.

Add to this the fact that the North Koreans, who have nuclear weapons, are testing missiles capable of hitting American cities. They appear to believe that the US and South Korea are gearing up to attack and invade them, based on beefed-up war games scheduled for next month, and may very well make a pre-emptive strike at one or both.

Iran, a constant threat due to its active support of Islamist terrorists world-wide, is very close to producing nuclear warheads to arm its already large stock of long-range missiles. Obvious targets, besides Israel, will be our military bases in the Mediterranean and Europe. Only the self-deluded believe they will not use them.

So, with all these real, dangerous, and growing threats to America, why are Obama and his Democrat storm troopers upping the pace of their rendering of the military incapable of defending us? They have pushed to military to accept open homosexuals and women in frontline combat units, in spite of documented growth in serious problems that have and will result from this. They are actively pushing to make devastating cuts to the military budget. In spite of condemning overseas intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, has just committed troops to Niger, joining those already in as many as 35 other African nations. We were told some time back that our military no longer has the capability to fight a two-theater war. Why then, is Obama spreading them even thinner? And with the growing nuclear threats, why is Marxist Obama moving to unilaterally make drastic reductions to America’s nuclear arsenal?

Seen in this context, the moves by Obama and the Marxist Democrats to disarm We, the People, the law-abiding American public, takes on an even more sinister caste. It is looking very much like hard-core Marxist revolutionary Obama is trying to set up America, and We, the People, for take-over somewhere in the not too distant future by role models and debt-masters, Communist China. Time to wake up?

The son of a German immigrant, I am an archaeologist by profession, with a BA from Metropolitan State College of Denver, and an MA from Leicester University, in England. I am also the Chairman of the Freedom21 Legislative Committee. Over the years, I have lived and worked all over the country, and traveled in Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Europe, Australia, and Japan. I sincerely believe in the old saying, “America, love it or leave it.”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53340


Thursday, February 23, 2012
Obama's Disarm-America Agenda

Story here.

Cutting America’s nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads — a level not seen since 1950 — would place the number of US strategic nuclear weapons at a level comparable with France, heightening fears that it would make America’s strategy of nuclear deterrence obsolete.

Yet, even if President Obama ultimately accepts the 1,100 level of strategic nuclear warheads, it would still represent a significant and serious nuclear cutback given that many American military officials claim that the 1,550 level mandated by New START is the lowest level that can be used to maintain deterrence of a nuclear attack.

Moreover, they argue, such a cutback in nuclear weapons would also serve to undermine the credibility of the nuclear “umbrella” that the United States extends to its allies (such as South Korea and Japan). Absent US nuclear protection, those countries may very well feel compelled to build their own nuclear forces. In fact, Saudi Arabia is already planning to
initiate its own nuclear program if Iran gets a nuclear bomb.

Unfortunately, the decision to neuter America’s nuclear forces comes at the same time the Obama administration is working to heavily diminish America’s conventional forces, a process begun in January when Obama ordered a shift from the nation’s longstanding capability to fight two major conflicts at once.

Hey... why does it seem that the ONLY thing Obama is cutting from is national defence?

Why bother to cut ANYTHING if he's ratcheting up overall spending anyway? It's clear that he aims to bankrupt America ASAP. So his agenda of decimating America's ability to win a potential world war would logically fit with his agenda to bring America to her knees, which he's doing very well, and very quickly...

[vector7]

Disturbing Pattern! Yet Another Military General Forced from Service

Published on February 20th, 2013



It’s a developing pattern of this Obama White House.

Barack Obama cashiered yet another battle-seasoned American general Tuesday, even as the war in Afghanistan continues along with numerous other serious global threats to United States security.

This is the fourth senior officer Obama has forced from the country’s service.

All four were tied somehow to the Afghanistan mess that Obama has long argued was the most important war. Each departure was staged as a resignation. They were usually tied to some personal indiscretions to save face for Obama, who would know of indiscretions as a product of the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine.

There was Gen. David McKiernan, the four-star who lead U.S. ground forces during the successful lightning Iraq invasion. He was asked to resign command of allied forces in Afghanistan just four months into Obama’s presidency in 2009. Never fully explained, but the implication was administration dissatisfaction with the war’s progress.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a special ops veteran who was McKiernan’s successor. He resigned when his staff was quoted making derogatory comments to an embedded journalist about the administration in general and VP Joe Biden in particular. If mocking Megamind Biden is worthy of resignation, then most of America needs to step down by lunch today.

Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the surge and successful counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq, was demoted from Central Command to return to lead the Afghan war. After that successful tour Obama named him director of the Central Intelligence Agency, which required his military resignation after nearly four decades of service.

Read More: http://news.investors.com/

[vector7]

White House releases new state-by-state reports on the impacts of the sequester

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/02/24/2...#storylink=cpy

WASHINGTON, DC — THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary February 24, 2013 White House Releases New State-by-State Reports on the Impacts of the Sequester


Today, the White House is releasing new state-by-state reports on the devastating impact the sequester will have on jobs and middle class families across the country if Congressional Republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester by March 1st.


The link to each state report can be found below:


1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. California
6. Colorado
7. Connecticut
8. Delaware
9. District of Columbia
10. Florida
11. Georgia
12. Hawaii
13. Idaho
14. Illinois
15. Indiana
16. Iowa
17. Kansas
18. Kentucky
19. Louisiana
20. Maine
21. Maryland
22. Massachusetts
23. Michigan
24. Minnesota
25. Mississippi
26. Missouri
27. Montana
28. Nebraska
29. Nevada
30. New Hampshire
31. New Jersey
32. New Mexico
33. New York
34. North Carolina
35. North Dakota
36. Ohio
37. Oklahoma
38. Oregon
39. Pennsylvania
40. Rhode Island
41. South Carolina
42. South Dakota
43. Tennessee
44. Texas
45. Utah
46. Vermont
47. Virginia
48. Washington
49. West Virginia
50. Wisconsin
51. Wyoming