Obama's 'Civilian National Security Force'

[American Patriot]

The very FIRST thing standing out was this:

Charles Goodson, the gun club's 31-year-old dreadlocked vegan co-founder, grew up less than a mile away.

1) Dreadlocks NORMALLY mean a connection with Rastafari movement

2) The Rastafari movement is normally vegan (or almost no meat)

3) They are general advocates of NON-violent over throw of governments.


HOWEVER, Rastas have been VERY violent in the past.

Something to remember



Rastafari movement

See also: Rastafari movement
The Rastafari movement or Rasta is a new religious movement that arose in the 1930s in Jamaica, which at the time was a country with a predominantly Christian culture where 98% of the people were the black descendants of slaves.^[3][4] Its adherents worship Haile Selassie I, Emperor of Ethiopia (ruled 1930–1974), as God incarnate, the Second Advent, or the reincarnation of Jesus.

[Ryan Ruck]

Where to start...

- No LBE with readily accessible reloads (probably no reloads at all)
- Weapons slung like duffel bags
- No armor
- No first aid gear
- No organization
- Hodge podge weapons

What a bunch of soup sandwiches.

In the words of Gunny Hartman:





The only 2 who give me even the slightest pause are the two "Rangers" (in quotes because I think they are flat out liars). They at least did enough time in the military to figure out how to march (note guy on the left's thumbs) and how to carry a weapon (Hi-Point! ) at low ready, finger off the trigger. I'm certain the motor pool and kitchen are a lesser place without their presences...

[Avvakum]

Where to start...

- No LBE with readily accessible reloads (probably no reloads at all)
- Weapons slung like duffel bags
- No armor
- No first aid gear
- No organization
- Hodge podge weapons

What a bunch of soup sandwiches.

In the words of Gunny Hartman:





The only 2 who give me even the slightest pause are the two "Rangers" (in quotes because I think they are flat out liars). They at least did enough time in the military to figure out how to march (note guy on the left's thumbs) and how to carry a weapon (Hi-Point! ) at low ready, finger off the trigger. I'm certain the motor pool and kitchen are a lesser place without their presences...

Well, I have a feeling that worst case scenario, these kind of folks will wind up as serious cannon fodder. I am more worried about the long-term. These people, from what i've read, no longer see themselves as Americans, they see themselves as having another, smaller more ethno-nationalist identity.

Large multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural nations always tend to break apart in time.

[American Patriot]

I forgot something in my notes.

NORMALLY Rastas aren't military, weren't, won't be... etc

[Avvakum]

I forgot something in my notes.

NORMALLY Rastas aren't military, weren't, won't be... etc

What makes me sick about these Rasta cultists is that the late Emperor of Ethiopea was such a good and decent ruler of his country, who never knew about the Rastafarians (named after his pre-king name; 'Ras Tafari') until they mobbed his airplane during a visit to Jamaica in the late 1960's, and he was frankly saddened and horrified by them.

[vector7]

Obama and mayors planning not only to reform but to totally replace America’s police forces

By Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives May 2, 2015
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us



Mayors and city councils—in office largely courtesy of public apathy—are President Barack Obama’s boots on the ground in the ongoing, carefully orchestrated racial riots coming soon to a city near you.

In their bid to rescue America from total Marxist eclipse, patriots, as it turns out, have been knocking on the wrong door.

Republicans, who surrendered to the Democrats even after taking over House and Senate in last Midterm elections, have no dog in the racial riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities, but Mayor Stephanie Rowlings-Blake, who ordered a police stand down in Baltimore, and a bevy of other Democrat mayors, do.

With the undercover help of activist municipal mayors and councils, Obama seeks not to reform the nation’s police—but to totally replace them.

While diverting public attention by snubbing senators, and overriding both Constitution and Congress, Obama is now hammering the final nail in the Fundamental Transformation of America coffin.

It’s a mission aided and abetted by mercenary ‘civil rights‘ activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and one largely conducted out of sight with White House help.

Local civic elections consistently have the lowest voter turnout, yet represent the level of government that poses the biggest threat to liberty and freedom. It is through complicit mayors and councils that the United Nations has been able to forge the road to Agenda 21 for all of Western society.

As incredible as it may seem, It is with the cooperation of municipal politicians that Obama will get to replace every police force in the United States with a more military styled one that is answerable only to him.

We the People should have seen Baltimore and Ferguson coming on July 2, 2008, when Obama boasted in Colorado Springs, CO: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Most assumed he was talking about the military, which he soon began to hollow out.

Few realized the most anti-American president ever elected had his sight fixed on replacing thousands of police forces across the country, whose job it has always been to keep the public peace, with his own military-style police.

It’s the return of Fidel Castro, only this time in America.

By ridding the nation of its traditional police forces, Obama and his army of activist municipal politicians will be tossing into the trash can first responders who happen to wear the Serve & Protect badge.

Getting there has been Marxist Community organizing all the way.

First came the smear job spreading the fallacy that police deliberately profile only young blacks, and are addicted to the habit of randomly shooting them. Marxist propaganda leaves the disingenuous impression that racist rogue cops dominate most police forces.

Within days of the Baltimore riots, Obama made it clear he wouldn’t be surveying the damage; wouldn’t be lifting a finger to call for calm.

He didn’t have to with the mayor doing his dirty work.

One hundred police officers were injured in the Baltimore riots. Businesses up and running only the day before were left in burnt-out rubble, facts carelessly written off by Obama.

Obama’s reaction to what’s going on in Baltimore has been expressed in words as casual as they are well crafted:

“The communities in Baltimore that are having these problems now are no different from the communities in Chicago when I first started working” as a community organizer, Obama said. “I’ve seen this movie too many times before.” (National Journal, April 29, 2015)

The difference now is that it’s Obama directing the racial riot movie.

With the Republicans snoozing at the switch, and most unsuspecting folk not knowing that Obama’s boots on the ground are the municipalities, what’s going to stop him from accomplishing his latest mission?

Obama counts on the same kind of apathy that dogs municipal elections about racial riots that are being staged, right down to including outside protesters being rushed in to the scene of the riots.

Like in televised episodes of Hill Street Blues, when the Black Arrows, Shamrocks and Los Diablos came together when there was something in it for them, the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam came together in Baltimore.

That coming together of the three parties was unprecedented.

Yet, instead of asking why the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam would come together during the Baltimore riots, Rowlings-Blake thanked the Nation of Islam.

Talk show radio giant and patriot Mark Levin points out that Rowlings-Blake was in constant touch with chief Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett throughout the riots.

By throwing gasoline on the racial discord gathering steam in American cities, is Obama sending a message to America’s foreign enemies that the U.S. is now at its most vulnerable for a strike?

Are internet commenters like Richard Jackson who posits: “I think the riots are simply programming people to get used to a military presence (instead of police) and curfews, etc. for something bigger later on”, on the right track?

Should edgy folk be watching the Jade Helm 15 large-scale military exercise to be played out from July 15 to November 15, across seven states, with thousands of locals “participating or role playing in the exercise” wearing I.D. markings be watching the military instead of passively letting the military watch them?

Meanwhile, speaking to a group of schoolchildren at the Anacostia Library in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Obama said he might return to community organizing.

In truth, his plans to nationalize America’s police forces, prove he’s never left it.

Sharpton Calls for DOJ to ‘Take Over Policing,’ ‘Going to Have to Fight States’ Rights’

by Ian Hanchett
30 Apr 2015



Rev. Al Sharpton called for the Justice Department to “take over policing in this country” and stated “we’re going to have to fight states’ rights” in comments recorded by the Baltimore Sun on Thursday.

Sharpton said, “we need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights in — to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases.”

He added, “police must be held accountable. I don’t think all police are bad. I don’t even think most are bad. But those that are need to be held accountable.”


Video via: The Baltimore Sun

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/...states-rights/

[vector7]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch will ask Congress for $28 billion

Posted: May 07, 2015 7:28 AM CST



NBC -
The Nation's new Attorney General was on Capitol Hill Thursday to ask Congress for $28 billion next year.Some of it may be used to deal with the aftermath of questionable arrests like Baltimore, but the biggest increase she's asking for is to deal with immigration.

This morning Attorney General Loretta Lynch will ask Congress for a 40% increase in her immigration budget to deal with a massive backlog of cases --Including children who've crossed the border without their parents.

She wants more money for prisons, state and local grants for things like police body cameras, and civil rights investigations.

Baltimore's mayor wants the feds to scrutinize her police after six officers were charged in the death of Freddie Gray. "I believe we need the assistance of the Department of Justice and the civil rights foundation to shore up that foundation that is weak right now in our city," said Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

"We'll consider that request as well as any other request for assistance that we get," said U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

"The Justice department has the power of the purse to begin to restore the trust between the community and the police department," said Senator Barbara Mikulski, (D) Maryland.

All that plus: fighting terror - 106 million to help the FBI track people like the alleged gunmen killed in Sunday's attack in Garland, Texas.
That's a full plate, and a big challenge for an attorney general now less than two weeks on the job.

[vector7]

Leftist Islamic Gangs To Bring Order to Amerika

[vector7]

Companion Thread: Now in Obama's America it's "unfair" to be white

Army investigates: Are these West Point cadets making a political statement in uniform?

Tony Lombardo, Army Times 2:11 p.m. EDT May 5, 2016


FUTURE TSA AGENTS?

This image shows members of the U.S. Military Academy class of 2016.(Photo: Courtesy)

16194 CONNECTTWEET 14 LINKEDIN 319 COMMENTEMAILMORE

West Point is investigating a photo that shows 16 black female cadets in uniform displaying raised fists outside a U.S. Military Academy barracks.

“We can confirm that the cadets in this photo are members of the U.S. Military Academy's Class of 2016,” said West Point’s director of public affairs Lt. Col. Christopher Kasker in an emailed statement. “Academy officials are conducting an inquiry into the matter."While many details are unknown about the photo, the image has been shared widely in military circles, with claims the women are supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.

The raised fist is a symbol associated with Black Lives Matter, although it’s been used for centuries to symbolize resistance by a number of groups, from labor unions to suffragists to socialists to the Black Panthers.

The official Black Lives Matter website describes itself as a “chapter-based national organization working for the validity of Black life.

We are working to (re)build the Black liberation movement.” It was created in 2012 following the death of Trayvon Martin.

Army Times received the photo Wednesday from several readers who are concerned the women violated Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces. The policy provides a list of political do's and don’ts for service members and cautions against "partisan political activity" when in uniform.

John Burk — a motivational coach, online firebrand and former soldier — criticized the image Wednesday via his fitness website In The Arena. He said the women may run afoul a section of the policy that says troops may not “Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.” His post on Facebook was shared more than 1,200 times, which helped to fuel speculation and raise concerns.

An email requesting comment from Black Lives Matter leadership was not immediately returned.

[vector7]

The Obama Administration's controversial plan to hire military leaders off the street

Andrew Tilghman, Military Times 5:04 a.m. EDT June 19, 2016


Lateral entry, if approved, could open a door for civilians to join the military's senior officer ranks. Some leaders want to explore this idea for enlisted military jobs, too.(Photo: John Harman/Staff)


Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants to open the door for more “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks, clearing the way for lifelong civilians with vital skills and strong résumés to enter the officer corps as high as the O-6 paygrade.

The idea is controversial, to say the very least. For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths. But while it's not universally embraced, there is interest in Congress and among some of the military's uniformed leaders — even, they say, in exploring how the services could apply this concept to the enlisted force.


MILITARYTIMES
The 4 big takeaways from Ash Carter's new push for military personnel reform

This is a key piece of Carter’s “Force of the Future” personnel reform. Unveiled June 9, it aims to help the military bring in more top talent, especially for high-tech career fields focused on cyber warfare and space. Advocates say it will help the military fill important manpower shortfalls with highly skilled professionals and, more broadly, create greater “permeability” between the active-duty military and the civilian sector.

At the same time, it suggests eroding the military’s tradition of growing its own leaders and cultivating a force with a distinct culture and tight social fabric, which many believe to be the heart of military effectiveness. Critics worry it will create a new subcaste of military service members who are fundamentally disconnected from the traditional career force.

“They will enter a culture they don’t know, understand or potentially appreciate,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and military expert at the Heritage Foundation. “The Marines around them will likely be challenged to appreciate them as they would a fellow Marine.”

If approved by Congress, the individual military services would be authorized — but not required — to expand lateral entry up to the rank of colonel, or in the case of the Navy a captain. It's part of a broader reform effort that may also include new rules for bringing enlisted troops in at the noncommissioned officer ranks, which does not require approval from Congress.

Yet the proposed change raises many cultural concerns and could result in a host of second-order effects. The services would have to tackle a range of questions. For instance, what kind of initial training will those officers undergo? Will lateral entry officers be eligible for promotion? Will junior officer retention be affected by the prospect of potentially leaving and returning years later at a higher rank?

Cyber, principally, is driving the call for change, but lateral entry could extend to any high-demand career field with a robust civilian counterpart — logistics, for example, and military policing or public affairs. Those who work in such technical jobs often are lured away from the military's officer and enlisted ranks by high-paying jobs in the private sector. Offering personnel the opportunity to earn an O-6 salary — plus benefits — might alleviate that.

However, this raises another set of issues that'll need to be addressed. For instance, the military's current pay structure would offer significantly less to a colonel or a captain with one year of service versus one with 20 or more. And the military retirement system does not offer much in exchange for only short-term service.


NAVY TIMES
The Navy wants to hire chiefs and captains – off the street – to fill cyber roles

The Navy is the most enthusiastic about Carter's proposal. The Army and Air Force say they will consider high-level lateral entries if the change is approved. And the Marine Corps appears to be the most skeptical.

Carter acknowledged some concerns, saying it’s unlikely that lateral entry would affect the operational career fields that have little if any civilian counterpart, like the infantry, surface warfare or combat aviation. “Now, I have to say we can’t do this for every career field — far from it. It will probably never apply to line officers, as they’ll always need to begin their military careers as second lieutenants and ensigns,” he said. “But allowing the military services to commission a wider segment of specialized outside talent … will make us more effective.”

The individual military services would hammer out the details for themselves, which would involve more than just identifying the high-demand career fields and high-skilled recruits. They would have to consider how candidates for lateral entry will adapt to service-specific military life.

“There are some cultural issues,” said Brad Carson, the Pentagon’s former personnel chief who helped draw up the ambitious slate of personnel reforms. “People who come in won’t just have to have the skills. They’ll have to have a military bearing and understand the military ethic. You don’t just get that by walking in off the street.”

But what if Mark Zuckerberg, the inventor and CEO of Facebook, wanted to join the military? Carson cites this hypothetical to illustrate the rigidity of today’s personnel system.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg delivers the keynote address at the F8 Facebook Developer Conference April 12, 2016, in San Francisco. (Photo: Eric Risberg/AP)

While Zuckerberg’s skills would likely be profoundly valuable to U.S. Cyber Command, the 32-year-old computer programmer dropped out of Harvard and has no bachelor’s degree, making him ineligible for commission as an officer. A military recruiter could probably find some ways to grant him credit for the skills and experience evident in his self-made fortune — estimated to be $51 billion — but not much.

“If Mark Zuckerberg decided that he wants to serve his county in the military, we could probably make him an E-4 at cyber command,” Carson said. “Corporal Zuckerberg. We think we should have the ability to bring him in at whatever rank the military service thinks he’d be effective.”

First cyber. Then what?

Even the suggestion of directly commissioning civilians as full-bird colonels or Navy captains — a rank many career officers never attain — reflects the degree of concern surrounding efforts to build out CYBERCOM. Created in 2010, the command is trying to stand up a force of 6,200 active-duty specialists organized in 133 teams.

But progress has been slower than hoped. The target date for standing up those teams was the end of 2016, but that deadline has been pushed out to 2018. So far, about half of those teams, 68, have reached what the military calls “initial operational capability,” and as many as 100 teams are currently conducting missions to meet the demand for offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, defense officials say.


MILITARYTIMES
Without solid training options, mysterious Cyber Command remains a work in progress

Some military officials fear that the demand for cyber operations is such that there’s not enough time for the services to grow their own cyber force from the ground up. Under the military's traditional personnel system, it might take more than a decade to cultivate the cyber capability that the Pentagon needs, some officials say.

Currently, by law the Pentagon is limited to use lateral entry for chaplains, lawyers, doctors and dentists, and even for those career specialties, lateral entry is capped at the O-4 paygrade, or the rank of major and, in the case of the Navy, lieutenant commander.

A Senate proposal would give the defense secretary authority to expand lateral entry to any career field and raise the rank cap to the O-6 paygrade. The law already allows the services to grant lateral entry to enlisted troops, and some in the Pentagon want to expand that authority.

Critics question the need for high-level lateral entry and suggest civilians or contractors could fill gaps in those high-tech fields. But officials say there are key reasons why pinning a full bird the collar of a lifelong civilian is a good idea.

For starters, it bestows legal protections as a full-fledged combatant, which has implications that range from ensuring prisoner-of-war status under international law to immunity from prosecution in court. "You'd want them to have 'Law of War' protection if you know what they are doing is having a kinetic effect," Carson said.

Basics, such as how to wear a uniform or knowing whom to salute, could prove confounding for midcareer civilians wooed into military service, critics of the plan argue. (Photo: Sgt. 1st Class Jon Soucy/Army)

Another concern is the level of interest among civilians. Many successful midcareer professionals have families and earning potential beyond what the military could offer.

“I really question who is going to do it,” said Richard Bejtlich, a 44-year-old Air Force Academy graduate who separated when he was a junior officer and is now a cyber-security expert with FireEye and the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington. “I don’t see a lot of people I know of saying, ‘Hey, I want to go abandon my current position and go be in the military.' ”

Ultimately, those with prior military experience might be the best candidates because they are familiar with military culture, and would acclimate and find acceptance far more quickly.

“Can you imagine someone coming in as an O-5 or O-6 and not knowing who salutes who? Or how to wear a uniform?” Bejtlich said. “The traditional military’s worst nightmare is to bring in some long-haired hippie and make him a colonel. The way I think you could make it palatable to the rank and file is, you would limit it to bringing in former military.”

Whether the authority for lateral entry is widely used will likely vary — significantly — by service.

The Navy

The Navy, more than any of the other services, has pushed aggressively to expand lateral entry. Navy officials say it will help fill critical needs in existing career fields — but also to build new capability quickly in the event of a full-scale war.

“Right now the one we’re focused on is the cyber [community] because that’s the immediate need,” said Vice Adm. Robert Burke, the chief of naval personnel. “But we want this authority in place ... because we want to be responsive when the need comes — we don’t want to start writing policy the minute we discover we need it.”

The Navy has no detailed plans for lateral entry at the moment. Should Congress give its approval, sources tell Military Times that the service could begin commissioning civilians into the upper ranks sometime in fiscal 2017, which begins in October.

“Today, cyber is where we need it; tomorrow we might need it in 10 other places,” he said “I just can’t foresee what those might be right now.”

Newly promoted chief petty officers stand at attention during their pinning ceremony in Naples Italy in 2013. (Photo: Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Corey Hensley/Navy)

The Navy is also considering more lateral entry for the enlisted force. Legally, that’s easy and, unlike for officers, requires no congressional approval. But culturally, the Navy could struggle to integrate chief petty officers brought in at the E-7 paygrade.

Burke broached the subject publicly in mid-May, at the annual Sea-Air Space Symposium in Washington. Feedback from the fleet was immediate. One chief petty officer, a chief aviation electronics technician stationed at North Island in California, called the suggestion "ridiculous."
“He states that he is ‘seeking the authority to bring somebody in at the E-7 level,’ ” the sailor said, asking for anonymity to speak freely.

"I find the choice of words interesting. Notice he doesn't say they want to bring someone in at the CPO level. There's only one entity that selects, tests and accepts chief petty officers. That's the United States Navy Chief Petty Officers Mess. Anything else is an E-7.

“They're talking about cheapening the CPO brand. They're talking about creating counterfeit chiefs."

The Army

Army leadership also has been quick to endorse Carter’s “Force of the Future” ideas, to include lateral entry — primarily as a way to shore up readiness.

"It gives secretaries of the services the authorities to use those tools that are needed,” Army Vice Chief Gen. Daniel Allyn told a crowd at the Heritage Foundation on June 13. “That's important. You want to have a toolbox that allows you to adjust as needed."

Army officials acknowledged that for some select skill sets, the proposals would be “very beneficial” for readiness, and the Army is looking into how best to apply those initiatives if the military receives the congressional authority Carter is seeking.

“We have expertise in America that could serve the military well, but we don’t have the apparatus to bring someone in,” said one Army official, who asked not to be identified. “Cyber is one of the key components of that. It’s so new in so many different ways. ... We’re coming to a place and time where we’re dealing with the cutting edge of many different issues.”


MILITARYTIMES
At West Point, millennial cadets say rigid military career tracks are outdated

The Army already uses the current lateral entry authorizations to bring in medical personnel, chaplains and, to some degree, lawyers. Most come in as captains or majors. Officials will opt for a limited use of any new authorities. “It won’t be a blanket approach, and it shouldn’t be,” the Army official said. “Some of this doesn’t apply to all branches and specialties.”

The Army tapped its existing lateral entry authority during the height of the Iraq war to help meet soaring demand for trauma surgeons, the official said.

Lateral entry will allow the Army to respond more quickly to emerging demands, said Guy Swan, a retired three-star general who is vice president for education at the Association of the United States Army. “You may have readiness needs that are needed today,” he said. “And certainly the Army could grow its own people, but it may not have the time.”

Swan said a good use of lateral-entry may be in the reserves. Reservists can “continue to hone their skills at Google or Microsoft and we can leverage those skills as needed,” he said. But he expects some pushback from the rank-and-file, at least initially.

Military reservists whose civilian jobs are in Silicon Valley may be the ideal candidates for lateral entry into the cyber field, one Army observer says. (Photo: Paul Sakuma/AP)

“It’ll probably take some additional explanation,” he said. “I think a large majority of the Army would never even see this. It would never affect their lives. You’re talking about narrow skill-sets that are niche capabilities.”

Swan likened lateral-entry recruits to warrant officers, which raises a question: Should these lateral entry soldiers be brought on as warrants, officers or noncommissioned officers? This is what the service needs to determine, Swan said, adding that they could also be brought in as civilian federal employees.

The Army has the power to extend lateral entry to some traditional hard-to-fill jobs in its NCO corps. But what jobs would they fill? The Army has had trouble in recent years placing sergeants and staff sergeants in highly technical jobs such as: MOS 25D (cyber network defender), 29E (electronic warfare specialist), 12P (prime power production specialist) 25E (electromagnetic spectrum manager).

Qualifications also remain high for NCOs looking to go 35L (counterintelligence agent).

The Air Force

The Air Force is open to the idea of expanding lateral entries, particularly for people with cyber skills. “We’re still exploring it,” Brig. Gen. Brian Kelly, director of military force management policy, said during an interview in May. “We are looking at similar programs to what the Navy is talking about.”

An Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon added that lateral entries could have a positive impact on the culture. "We certainly see opportunity to create the kind of 'ventilation' and influx of ideas and talents that the secretary of defense has previously discussed," Capt. Brooke Brzozowske wrote in a statement to Military Times.

Besides hackers or other cyber experts, the Air Force could benefit from bringing in midcareer people to serve as enlisted airborne cryptologic language analysts, said Terry Stevens, a retired Air Force colonel and personnel expert. Those language analysts are regularly on the Air Force’s list of the most stressed specialties, and to retain airmen in that field, the Air Force offers selective re-enlistment bonuses that can be worth tens of thousands of dollars. The latest list offered hefty bonuses to specialists who speak Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Persian, Hebrew or Pashto.

Foreign language skills could be an area where the Air Force considers lateral accessions for civilians. (Photo: Staff Sgt. Sara Csurilla/Air Force)

Some jobs in the Air Force are similar to those in the civilian aviation sector, so the Air Force could potentially bring on midcareer airmen with experience maintaining private sector aircraft, Stevens said.

The Air Force has regularly sounded the alarm about undermanning in career fields such as cyber, intelligence and maintenance, and adopted a slate of recruitment and retention incentives and strategies to bolster those positions. But officials would need to be careful how they bring on these new airmen, Stevens said. He said the service shouldn’t bring anyone into a rank higher than major, to avoid putting anyone in a leadership position who doesn’t have experience with the military, its culture and its processes.

“They have absolutely no military background, they don’t know how the systems work, they don’t know how to supervise military personnel,” Stevens said. Such a move would “create a lot of animosity, confusion and distrust” on the part of the existing officer corps.
If the Air Force needs someone’s skills badly enough to make them an O-6, Stevens said, it should instead hire them as a civilian at, for example, the GS-15 grade.

The Marine Corps

The Marine Corps might be the most skeptical among the four services.

A Marine personnel officer said the service's leaders support the proposal in part because of its "flexibility" and the fact it does not force the services to change their policies. "We are prepared to observe the 'experimentation' efforts of other services and adopt the best practices where applicable and advantageous," said Col. Gaines Ward, head of the service's promotions and policy branch.

Marine Corps leaders, while supportive of the flexibility Carter's plan would provide, fear the cultural rifts it could create within a service that fosters tradition and uniformity more so than the others. (Photo: Marine Corps)

Hiring a top-notch “cyber-warrior” at an elevated pay grade and having them give or take orders from a Marine with years of time in service would create a culture clash quite different from what you’d see at a Silicon Valley start-up, said Wood, the retired Marine officer at the Heritage Foundation. It’s that prospect of tension that concerns leaders at the Marine Corps' highest levels.

When Gen. Robert Neller became the service's 37th commandant last September, he immediately realized the need to bring top cyber talent into the force, but was concerned about maintaining recruiting standards, Brig. Gen. Loretta Reynolds, commander of Marine Forces Cyber Command, said during her remarks a recent conference in Washington.

“Do I have to start letting guys with purple hair and earrings in?” she recalled Neller asking.

The answer: No.

“You can let them in with purple hair but we’re going to shave it off anyways and plug up whatever holes they have if they’re smart enough,” Reynolds added.

The feasibility of direct accessions for the Marine Corps may also depend on the environment in which any lateral-entry personnel operate. Working in a stateside garrison environment may not be very different from having contractors fill these critical positions, but it would be a completely different thing in a combat environment, Wood said.

“If lateral-entry civilians actually become serving, uniformed and ranked ‘Marines,’ then I think their fellow ‘normal’ Marines would expect them to operate just as any Marine would,” he said. “Not having the years of growing up in the Corps, however, this might be a difficult transition for some to make, especially in combat situations.”

Tilghman is Military Times' Pentagon bureau chief. Staff writers Mark Faram, Stephen Losey, Matthew L. Schehl and Michelle Tan contributed to this report.

[American Patriot]

I should be able to sign up and go in at least as a Colonel.....

[American Patriot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd0j...ature=youtu.be

Are any of you following this, aware? Ready?

[American Patriot]

Looks like he's at it finally...

Federalizing, or Nationalizing the police force... just like he wanted all along

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...ral-shootings/



and CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/politi...ted/index.html

[vector7]

[vector7]

Obama and Hillary Exploit Murdered Cops to Federalize Police

Monday, 11 July 2016 Written by Alex Newman



Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are exploiting the killing of five police officers in Dallas to push a range of assaults on the U.S. Constitution, including a decades-old plot to federalize America's local police departments without any semblance of constitutional authority. In between subtly demonizing law-enforcement officers as racists and touting the controversial Black Lives Matter movement, the two Democrat Party standard-bearers also seized on the Dallas police shootings to promote further infringements on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Critics, though, including among America's police forces, blasted the Obama administration and its allies for fueling a “war” on law enforcement.

The establishment plan to federalize and militarize America's state and local police forces has been underway for decades. In recent years, though, the Obama administration has pushed the agenda further and faster than ever. Among other schemes, the White House has used “executive actions,” as well as bribe money provided by Congress and threats of lawsuits, to impose a wide range of unconstitutional federal “guidelines” and controls on law enforcement. Some critics referred to the schemes as “Common Core for police,” a reference to the administration's abuse of federal bribes to impose dumbed-down national “standards” on America's local school systems. The United Nations has even called on American police to obey what UN boss Ban Ki-moon called “international standards.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, though, police powers were not delegated to the federal government. That means those powers are reserved to the states, communities, or the people, as made explicit in the 10th Amendment. As such, American law-enforcement functions have generally been the responsibility of state, county, and local government, hence the close to 18,000 state and local law-enforcement agencies across America. Under the American federalist system of self-government, those police forces have traditionally been funded and controlled by the local communities they are supposed to protect and serve, making them accountable to the elected leaders of those communities rather than Obama. This system has served as a powerful check against centralized power, making any bid for full-blown national tyranny extremely difficult to impose.

But the establishment wants to change all that and shackle Americans under a national police force that serves not local communities, but the out-of-control executive branch of the federal government. And with the latest incidents to exploit, including two recent fatal shootings of citizens by police and the massacre of Dallas police officers, Obama and other federal supremacists are once again standing on dead bodies working fiendishly to federalize American police departments — a plot Obama and his minions have been working on, with limited success so far, for years. Now, with presumed Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton fully on board with the scheme, Obama is doubling down on his previous efforts.

Speaking on July 9 in Poland after a recent NATO summit there, Obama touted his lawless “task force” on so-called “21st century policing,” which was created via executive order last year in the wake of the Ferguson chaos fueled by billionaire Obama ally and Rothschild protege George Soros. “I want to start moving on constructive actions that are actually going to make a difference, because that is what all Americans want,” Obama declared, falsely suggesting that “all” Americans agree with his extremist agenda to usurp control over local police forces. The “actions” he referred to involve imposing the illegal “recommendations” offered by his illegal “task force,” including national standards for police.

Presumed Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton has been pushing the same agenda. In an interview on ABC, for example, Clinton argued that “we” need to “put in place guidelines to ensure that every police officer understands what is expected of him or her.” “A routine traffic stop, a routine arrest, escalating to the point where a gun is drawn and a life is lost,” Clinton rambled. “That’s why I am absolutely calling for national guidelines about the use of force. Every single one of our police officers should be trained and retrained in understanding how to avoid force.” Of course, in the real world, police officers are already trained and re-trained in how to avoid using force if and when it is possible. The Obama administration's legions of armed federal bureaucrats, however, have been caught openly training to shoot elderly Americans, children, and pregnant women, even while officially demonizing hundreds of millions of mainstream Americans as extremists and even potential terrorists.

In a separate interview with CNN, Clinton reiterated the call for federalizing police. “As I said, we need national guidelines to really set out when force should be used and especially when deadly force should be used,” she said, without citing any provision in the Constitution that would authorize such training or explaining why more federal training and guidelines would be superior to the training and guidelines communities and states already provide. “Some police departments have really taken that to heart.” Clinton did not specify which local or state police departments she believed were eager to become vassals of a potential Hillary Clinton administration, but it is unlikely that many officers or police chiefs want to be placed under the thumb of federal bureaucrats rather than serving and being accountable to their communities. The feds have already been caught teaching local police to view political bumper stickers as indicators of extremism and terrorism.

Between fomenting hatred of the police and traditional America, the radical establishment-backed allies of Clinton and Obama have been pushing the same agenda to federalize law enforcement. Discredited race hustler Al Sharpton, for example, who in a 1992 videotaped speech called for his supporters to start “offing the pigs” and slaughtering “crackers,” said last year that the Justice Department should “take over policing in this country.” The controversial figure, who owes millions in taxes but regularly visits the Obama White House, acknowledged that “we’re going to have to fight states’ rights.” Ironically, perhaps, grants from the out-of-control Obama Justice Department were linked in 2014 to a rap video promoting the murder of police officers. Obama himself famously launched his political career at the home of a Castro-backed communist terror leader, Bill Ayers, whose terrorist group murdered multiple American police officers and was plotting to murder millions of Americans with help from foreign governments, according to the FBI agent who infiltrated the group.

The UN, meanwhile, known to critics as the “dictators club,” has made a similar push to centralize American law enforcement. From constantly demonizing local American police forces as trigger-happy racists to urging the federal government to trample on the Constitution and usurp control over law enforcement, the UN has become increasingly bold in recent years. After the killing of Dallas officers, the UN released a press release blasting an alleged “high level of structural and institutional racism” among American peace officers. The bizarre screed also called on the U.S. government to promote “Black lives matter,” a term associated with a UN-linked racist movement that even leading black American police chiefs have blasted as a “radical hate group.”

The scandal-plagued UN chief, who now claims to lead the “Parliament of Humanity,” also demanded last year that American police adhere to what he called “national and international standards.” His own police and “peace” troops, though, have become infamous around the world and especially in Africa for raping and sexually exploiting children, murdering protesters and civilians, supporting Islamic militias engaged in the mass slaughter of Christians, and much more. It was not clear whose “international standards” the UN chief wanted to impose on American police.

Critics, though, are sounding the alarm about the push to federalize America's police departments. “Americans everywhere should be very concerned about oversight of local police agencies,” explained former police detective Jim Fitzgerald, the national field director for The John Birch Society, the parent organization of this magazine. The constitutionalist group, which has chapters in all 50 states, has been running a campaign for decades called “Support Your Local Police — and Keep Them Independent.” The effort is meant to, among other goals, build support for local police while protecting local communities from having their police departments turned into tentacles of an all-powerful federal government.

“These steps to exercise and take control over police departments should raise a red flag among police officials and give deep concern to anyone who understands the history of national police forces,” continued Fitzgerald. “Have we so soon forgotten the Gestapo and the KGB, both national police agencies, that terrorized the citizens of Germany and Russia and led to the imprisonment and deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men and women? Has there ever been a national police force that benefited the citizens who live under it? Never!” Fitzgerald is currently traveling the country speaking about these issues and working to educate citizens and build support for local law enforcement.

Americans must resist the anti-constitutional effort to strip local communities' ability to govern themselves and control their own police departments. The federal government has no legal authority to nationalize or federalize law enforcement. And even if it did, it would be a terrible idea, as even recent history has shown. Indeed, the agenda to impose a national police force on America is extremely dangerous. In addition to protecting and serving their communities, America's local law-enforcement agencies represent a powerful bulwark against any potential future effort to impose tyranny on the American people. And so, the establishment's agenda to undermine that bulwark must be strongly opposed.




http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ponent&print=1