The Leftist Plot to Destroy the US Military

[Avvakum]

Looks like something those effete French would wear.

Tell the four million French dead from world war one 1914-1918 that they were effete. Or the 125,000 who died in may of 1940. And even the modern French seem to have no trouble kicking Jihadi ass in Mali.

No nation, including America, has been left untouched by the withering and emasculating touch of the International Left.

[Malsua]

Tell the four million French dead from world war one 1914-1918 that they were effete. Or the 125,000 who died in may of 1940. And even the modern French seem to have no trouble kicking Jihadi ass in Mali.

No nation, including America, has been left untouched by the withering and emasculating touch of the International Left.

That's the problem...all the warriors were killed in WWI and there was a marked dearth of soldiers to protect the country so they created the Maginot line. The idea being that a few soldiers could hold up an invading force for a long time...and they did, except Hitler just bypassed it and went through Belgium.

Right now there's a bunch of lazy snail slurping winos in Paris who have no warrior spirit. It is upon these heads that this hat would look perfect and match their snappy uniforms and shoes.

That said, a marine is not defined by his wardrobe, so other than looking a bit silly, it won't affect them much.

[Avvakum]

That's the problem...all the warriors were killed in WWI and there was a marked dearth of soldiers to protect the country so they created the Maginot line. The idea being that a few soldiers could hold up an invading force for a long time...and they did, except Hitler just bypassed it and went through Belgium.

Right now there's a bunch of lazy snail slurping winos in Paris who have no warrior spirit. It is upon these heads that this hat would look perfect and match their snappy uniforms and shoes.

That said, a marine is not defined by his wardrobe, so other than looking a bit silly, it won't affect them much.

Indeed, but even a minor thing combined with a few more major ones, might be enough for a young man otherwise fit for service to not want to enlist.

[American Patriot]

There's something about making them LOOK sissified that isn't right.

The hats are stupid. Get rid of the dumb asses trying to push those hats.

Get rid of Obama.

And as for the French - There are, like anywhere, good and bad people. And Mal is 100% dead on, with his description: "Right now there's a bunch of lazy snail slurping winos in Paris who have no warrior spirit." they are the epitome of Leftist Sissies and sit over in Paris being sissies.

Any European trash that thinks like a Socialist is a sissy.

And that includes Americans who wanna be Eurotrash.

[Ryan Ruck]

Yep, these guys are a distinct minority in French society...





Then again, it's getting to be that same way here. Here's what we are becoming...

[Malsua]

Trial balloon?

---------
Marines shoot down Internet story on Obama’s alleged push for ‘girly hats’

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/marin...-hats-1.248963


The story is sweeping the Internet: President Barack Obama is trying to emasculate male Marines by making them wear a girly cover with their famed dress uniforms. The only problem? It’s not true.
First, some background: Men and women in the Marine Corps currently wear different types of covers as part of their dress and service uniforms. The manufacturer of the women’s “bucket cover” – which has a distinctly different shape than the men’s cover – is going out of business and will not continue to make the cap, according to the Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps also has been asked by the DoD to find a unisex option for a dress and service cover, Marines said.
So, the Marine Corps Uniform Board, which meets quarterly, decided to gather feedback in advance of its meeting next week. Active and Reserve Marines were asked to vote on whether they believe women should adopt the current male cover, with some small modifications, or for all Marines to adopt what they call the Dan Daly cap.
Sgt. Maj. Dan Daly, a two-time Medal of Honor recipient who yelled, “Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?” as he led Marines into the fight at Belleau Wood during World War I, wore a cap similar to the option proposed by the survey.
The Marine Corps Uniform Board will use the surveys to formulate a recommendation, though popularity isn’t the only consideration -- as evidenced by the strong negative reaction to the recent decision to keep camouflage utility sleeves rolled down all year.
Commandant Gen. James Amos must approve any uniform board recommendation before it takes effect.
In an email, Marine Corps officials said there is no truth to reports that President Obama is behind the potential change.
“The president in no way, shape or form directed the Marine Corps to change our uniform cover,” according to the Marine Corps statement. “We are looking for a new cover for our female Marines for one overriding reason: The former manufacturer went out of business. … The Marine Corps has zero intention of changing the male cover.”
hlad.jennifer@stripes.com
Twitter: @jhlad

[American Patriot]

While the President MIGHT NOT have anything to do with this (and I think it likely untrue anyway) the Marines do INDEED change uniform parts occasionally (like all services do) and they do have a uniform board, and they ARE considering the "hat".

Its ugly and shouldn't be used.

Let the women Marines wear the same uniform as the men - hats and all

[Ryan Ruck]

That's exactly what it was, a trial balloon.

It was already a posted news story they were going to start having the women wear a more men's cut uniform.

They were just trying to see if they could get away with the reverse in the name of "equality".

[American Patriot]

It's a bunch of Sissy Crap, is what it is.....

[Ryan Ruck]

Oh, by the way, I've heard from a couple Marines that this is NOT a rumor as it is being painted in media sources.

This news was apparently posted to MARCORSYSCOM.

It went over as well as a shit-filled balloon like that could be expected to and they nuked the page. No link there now.

The part about Obama being directly involved is likely a product of the rumor mill but then again, Gen. Amos (USMC Commandant) is an Obama sycophant so it isn't hard to draw that connection.

[Ryan Ruck]

I found the original link to the MARCORSYSCOM site where this was officially mentioned. As I said, the original article has been nuked fortunately Google cached a copy of the page before that happened.

http://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/...rm-issues.aspx

Board asks Marines’ opinions about uniform issues

October 18, 2013 -- By MCSC Corporate Communications

The Marine Corps Uniform Board seeks active-duty and Reserve Marines’ feedback on three uniform-related issues. This comes ahead of a decision memorandum that will be sent to the Marine Corps commandant in the late fall.

A survey was sent to sergeants major across the Corps Oct. 14 to be distributed to Marines. Feedback on the survey is sought through Oct. 25.

The three issues being decided include the adoption of universal, unisex dress and service caps; authorization for female Marines to wear partial multiple braids, or microbraids, in uniform; and a modification to the existing supplemental clothing allowance.

“Marines are asked to vote using the ‘Individual Marine Voting Worksheet’ provided electronically to designated command representatives,” said Mary Boyt, Marine Corps Uniform Board representative. “Marines who did not receive a survey but would like to participate should contact their sergeants major before the deadline.”

The completed surveys will be consolidated and sent to the Uniform Board by the designated command representatives by Oct. 25. The uniform board is scheduled to meet Oct. 29.

[American Patriot]

WND EXCLUSIVE

Top generals: Obama is 'purging the military'

Describe president's actions as 'emasculating,' ranks now lack 'will to win'

Published: 12 hours ago


F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.


WASHINGTON – Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

Boykin points out that the military adheres to the constitutional requirement of a civilian leadership over the military. As a consequence, officers are not allowed to criticize their civilian leadership, as occurred when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was relieved in 2010 of his command of the International Security Assistance Force and commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan.

He was relieved due to what has been described as unflattering remarks made about Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials in a Rolling Stone magazine article. He was recalled to Washington where Obama accepted his resignation as commander in Afghanistan.

Boykin says that because of the fundamental civilian leadership over the military, McCrystal was “appropriately forced to retire.”

Read the words of the Founders, in “America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations.”

Some officers were involved in adulterous affairs and those situations, Boykin said, also were grounds for dismissal.

Boykin specifically said that because of the civilian-military relationship, he did not see any prospect for a “coup” coming from the military ranks.

“People I’ve spoken to would like to see the military ‘fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,’” Boykin said. “Our Constitution puts a civilian in charge of the military and as a result a coup would not be constitutional. You’re not going to see a coup in the military.”

Nevertheless, Boykin said the future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, since colonels who would be generals also are being relieved of duty, if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades therefore have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Boykin referred to recent reports that Obama has purged some 197 officers in the past five years.

These reports suggest these officers were suspected of disloyalty or disagreed with the Obama administration on policy or force-structure issues. As Boykin pointed out, a number of them have been relieved of duty for no given reason.

“Morale is at an unprecedented low,” Boykin said, part of which is due to sequestration.

Sequestration has seriously cut back operational readiness for the military to the point where Boykin said that often they have no ammunition and are unable to conduct training because of the planned cuts.

“These officers want to train for war but are not be allowed to” because of the preoccupation not only with sequestration, but what Boykin said were other concerns surfacing in the military under Obama as commander-in-chief.

He referred specifically to the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which now allows openly homosexual personnel in the military. In addition, he said the integration of women into the infantry “will reduce readiness of units.” He also was critical of the rules of engagement which he says favor “political correctness over our ability to fight to win.”

“The last time we won an all-out war was in 1944,” Boykin said. “Now, we don’t have the will to win.”

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” said, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true.

“I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past,” he said.

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Brady made similar references in a recent article he wrote for WND in which he said “just when you thought the leadership of this government could not get any worse, it does. Never in history has an administration spawned another scandal to cover the current one.”

The reference was to the recent firing of a number of generals to mask “Obama’s serial scandals, all prefaced by lies – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS” among others.

WND reported that three of the nine firings by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sep. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the CIA special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals there were Delta Force personnel in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

“To understand the insufferable assaults on our military and veterans, who should be exempt from political squabbles but are often at the forefront of Obama threats, we need to understand the psyche of the elite in this country led by Obama,” Brady said.

“It is no accident that the president used the Obama sequester and shutdown to punish the military family,” he said. “It is part of his DNA. In fact it is in the psyche of the entire liberal/progressive establishment – the elite. President Clinton outed himself and this ilk when he declared his loathing of the military. Who could believe progressives/liberals care about veterans and military?”

Brady said that some people who fear for the future of the United States believe it needs to be “re-moralized.”

“We cannot survive without increasing patriotism, a youth schooled in the Constitution,” Brady said. “If the uncommon common American is to prevail against the elite, we need to return to the truths of our Constitution.

“We need to realize that this recent assault on the military and veterans is no accident,” Brady added. “It is purposeful. The elite loathe our military, the one sure guarantor of our freedom. These elite – not a shutdown or default – and their assault on the Constitution and our military are the real threat to our future.”

Army Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely similarly has been very vocal in his opposition to the Obama administration.

Vallely said the White House won’t investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-gener...dhGYxEPShmo.99

[American Patriot]

The Cleansing: President Obama Transforms Military In His Image By Firing 197 Officers

Posted: November 1, 2013 |
Defense: What the president calls “my military” is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.


We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.


Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.


Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.


Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.




From Breitbart.com‘s Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from “leaving blast doors on nukes open” to “loss of confidence in command ability” to “mishandling of funds” to “inappropriate relationships” to “gambling with counterfeit chips” to “inappropriate behavior” to “low morale in troops commanded.”


Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.


Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.” Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.






“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”


Another senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution, that “they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or do not toe the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.”


For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies. It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be “his” military and used only for “his” purposes.

[American Patriot]

Navy SEALs ordered to remove ‘don’t tread on me’ Navy Jack from uniforms

10:44 AM 11/01/2013







Carl Higbie
Author, 'Battle on the Home Front'




The Navy Jack is the ‘don’t tread on me’ flag, one that has earned a revered place in America’s naval history and a beloved place in sailor’s hearts, through its use for over two centuries. This symbol of America’s naval ferocity has spanned our country’s entire existence, flying from the masts of the Continental Navy during the war of independence, to today’s War on Terror. In fact, an amendment to the Navy code called SECNAV Instruction 10520.6 clearly states that as of 31 May 2002 all ships are to fly the flag throughout the duration of the War on Terror.


So why would ranking SEAL commanders ban the historical symbol? Is the proverbial top bass banning the flag? Is President Obama?


Clearly the administration and sycophant “top brass” officers have degraded America’s military prestige; from hand-tying rules of engagement, to uniform regulations that make our military allegedly more compatible with foreign forces, to the banning of an awe-inspiring flag that traces its roots to the first U.S. Navy. We have a civilian-led military, but why should our ranking commanders be complicit in the administration’s war on it? Why don’t they stand up to Obama and his leftist cronies?


During my two deployments to Iraq, “Don’t Tread on Me” was a phrase seen on nearly every uniform and platoon space — including mine. From patches to flags to large paintings on concrete barriers, our commanders themselves wore the insignia on their sleeves — until now.


Perhaps this is why so many of my former teammates felt compelled to send me the email below. They may not be able to expose the administration’s travesty, but I can. The email, dated October 22, reads:

ALL:


WARCOM and GROUP TWO/ONE have pushed out the uniform policy for NWU III and any patches worn on the sleeve.


All personnel are only authorized to wear the matching “AOR” American Flag patch on the right shoulder. You are no longer authorized to wear the “Don’t Tread On Me” patch.


Again the only patch authorized for wear is the American flag on the right shoulder. Please pass the word to all
Thanks


Senior Enlisted Advisor


[Name Redacted]

After reading the email, I first wondered, ‘why?’ (Actually, first I headed to the gym to take out my frustration and anger on some unsuspecting weights with the fury and intensity only a former Navy SEAL can exert.) Why would our leaders sell out our heritage? Why would they rob present and future sailors of our battle cry?


When a friend of mine asked his leadership the same question, he was told, “The Jack is too closely associated with radical groups.” We must assume that this thought policeman embedded in the SEAL community is speaking of the Tea Party, whose flag (which also dates from the American Revolution) depicts a snake with the same defiant slogan as The Navy Jack.


This begs yet another question: Who defines “radical group”? The last time I checked, all military personnel are under oath to “support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The Tea Party stands for constitutional rights and founding principles of civil liberties and limited government. Radical? Not unless you’re a leftist hell-bent on destroying the foundations of our country. Or as the President has stated as the objective of his presidency, “to fundamentally transform” America.


My friends asked me what they should do about this order. I answer them by saying, “You took an oath to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic. Will you put your career before country? Will you put your career before your sacred oath?” I cannot tell anyone how to respond. I can tell you though that an enemy — foreign or domestic — that tries to take the Navy Jack from my uniform could only do so by ripping the patriotic patch from the uniform of my cold, dead body.


We all have choices to make. The Obama administration and the yes-men top brass have decided to wage war on our Navy’s heritage. Will the SEALs choose to defend that heritage and defy them, with all the impertinence the flag’s slogan implies? Or will they be tread upon?


Tags: Barack Obama, Carl Higbie, Navy Jack, Navy SEALs

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/01/na...#ixzz2jPmRs2AA

[American Patriot]

General blames 'Night Stalker' for military purge

Says mysterious adviser's influence on Obama now negatively affecting U.S. armed forces

Published: 15 hours ago

F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.

Valerie Jarrett

WASHINGTON – Who, or what, is behind the “purge” of top-level U.S. military officers during the Obama administration, with estimates of the number of senior officers fired during the last five years edging toward 200?


According to Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, formerly the deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, who has served as a Fox News senior military analyst , a good part of the blame belongs to Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Rampant “political correctness” due to her influence, Vallely tells WND, is now permeating the military and negatively affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.

WND has been reporting on the surge of firings, suspensions and dismissals of key military commanders under Obama, including just a day ago, when the commander of the U.S. Army Garrison Japan was summarily relieved of his duties.
So far, at least nine generals and flag officers have been relieved of duty under Obama just this calendar year – widely viewed as an extraordinary number.

Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer with far-left roots, is one of Obama’s closest advisers, and has been throughout his career, well before his presidential campaign and Oval Office occupancy. She has shadowed his career, largely staying out of the limelight, but is today widely recognized as perhaps the single most influential person, aside from wife Michelle, on Barack Obama.

Vallely suggested her influence is forcing senior officers to watch everything military personnel say and do. Officially, the White House calls her a senior adviser with responsibilities for the offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, but insiders agree her influence on the president is unique and powerful.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, says in a story by The Blaze, that Jarrett influences nearly every policy issue at the White House.
“She seems to have her tentacles into every issue and every topic,” Chaffetz says. “Her name ultimately always comes up.”
The Washington Post has written about Jarrett as the president’s “mysterious” adviser.

And author Ed Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times magazine, said in a Washington Times report that Jarrett was the secret “architect” of the Obama strategy to shut down the government and blame it on congressional Republicans.

“She convinced the president that a government shutdown and default offered a great opportunity to demonize the Republicans and help the Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives in 2014,” said Klein.

London’s Daily Mail newspaper notes that Jarrett’s insider nickname is “Night Stalker” because of her exclusive, late-night access to the presidential family’s private quarters.

According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command.
Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

Vallely equated the current treatment of U.S. senior military officers watching over what is said and done among mid-level officers and enlisted ranks to that of the “political commissars from the Communist era.”

For example, said Vallely, “Col. Dooley, who was relieved of duty … can’t even talk about radical Islam and other issues that the Obama administration is putting out.”

He is referring to U.S. Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, who was relieved of duty as a military instructor after being publicly condemned by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dooley was relieved because of what was referred to as the negative way Islam was portrayed in an approved course titled “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.”

Action was taken against him after 57 Muslim organizations in an Oct. 19, 2011, letter to the Department of Defense demanded that all training materials they judged to be offensive to Islam be “purged” and the instructors be “effectively disciplined.”
Dooley, in fact, later was eliminated from contention for a position as battalion commander even though a five-member selection board had agreed to consider him.
The controversy generated a legal claim on behalf of Dooley by the Thomas More Law Center, where Richard Thompson, president, said, “The way they’re treating him now is not only a total miscarriage of justice on a personal level, but it also is really removing an effective combat leader from the Army, and it ultimately effects the national security of the United States.”

In another case considered by Obama critics to exemplify his demands for radical political correctness in the U.S. military, Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk was relieved of his position for refusing to agree with the homosexual agenda of his commanding officer, a lesbian.

“It’s now reaching the point it’s not acceptable to think something,” attorney Mike Berry of Liberty Institute told WND about the case.
The conflict began when Monk objected to the plans of his commander at Lackland Air Force Base to severely punish a supervised staff sergeant who had expressed his religious objections to homosexuality to trainees.

During their conversation, the commander ordered Monk to reveal his personal views on homosexuality. Monk claims he then was relieved of his position because his views differed from the commander’s.

Berry explained, “We’re now at this juncture … if you don’t believe, or think in a particular manner, that’s going to be held against you.”
Of the current atmosphere, a sailor who recently returned from sea duty told Vallely he gets more instruction on sexual harassment than he does in how to handle weapons.

“The planned agenda is to squash any dialogue in the ranks on any issue on which the administration disagrees,” Vallely said.
He said a similar move has now taken place against officers in the Central Intelligence Agency in a congressional probe on the Sept.11, 2012, terrorist attack on the special mission in Benghazi.

The general pointed out that at least two CIA officers who were to testify recently were told a few weeks ago to keep quiet or they could lose their jobs.

“It is easier to do this to military personnel,” he said. “No one on the civilian side is purged.”

As a consequence of this White House-generated initiative, Vallely said the effect has been a major loss of morale in which soldiers believe they have lost their First Amendment rights.

The intimidation extends also to retired generals and mid-level officers who want to get jobs with defense contractors, according to Vallely, who said many even in retirement are intimidated, since it can affect their ability to get a government contract.

Even defense contractors are discouraging any talk within their corporations that disparage Obama’s agenda, he added.

“These are just some aspects on how our military is being decimated by telling them either to shut your mouth or you won’t get a job,” Vallely told WND.

In addition to Vallely, a number of prominent retired generals – from Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, to Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – have also gone on the record with WND on this issue.

They’ve described Obama’s actions as nothing less than an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.

Likewise, retired Navy Capt. Joseph John tells WND that the “bigger picture” is that “the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

A Naval Academy graduate, John had three tours of duty in Vietnam, served as an al-Qaida expert for the FBI, and was a commanding officer with SEALs embedded on special operations. As chairman of Combat Veterans For Congress PAC (Political Action Committee), he has helped elect 20 combat veterans to Congress.

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views,” John told WND.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”

In an email to WND, John outlined what he termed “a very few of the most egregious” aspects of Obama’s “attack” on the military over the past five years.

He referred specifically to the Rules of Engagement in combat that were put in place after Obama took office, asserting that the changes resulted in very high casualty rates in Afghanistan, including the loss of 17 members of SEAL Team 6 in one incident.

“The Rules of Engagement precluded the use of suppression fire at a landing zone,” John said.

Echoing what other high-ranking officers have told WND, he said the Pentagon policy of repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” resulted in the first openly “gay” “major military force in the world.” The development has brought about “massive” sexual assaults on “thousands of straight military male personnel that have been covered up,” he said.

If John’s comments about Obama sound dire, they are no more so than those expressed to WND in recent days by top generals.

Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, said Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another military source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

The future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, added Boykin, since colonels who would become generals are also being relieved of duty if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.
As a consequence, he said, the lower grades have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” told WND, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true. I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past.”

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

WND reported that three of the nine firings by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sep. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the CIA special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals there were Delta Force personnel in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/general-b...e2ubR2KI5AB.99

[vector7]

Fear at the Highest Levels: Gov Changes Navy Uniforms: “Too Closely Associated with Radical Groups”

Mac Slavo
November 4th, 2013

(Pictured: Traditional Navy Jack Worn By Navy Seals and flown by Naval ships)

The government of the United States has just provided clear evidence that they are absolutely terrified of the liberty-driven sentiment sweeping the country.

Following September 11th, the US Navy advised all of their special forces operatives in the Sea, Air and Land teams that their new uniforms would consist of a flag bearing 13 strips, the traditional rattlesnake of the Gadsden flag, and the words “Don’t Tread On Me.”

It’s purpose, says Michael Dorstewitz of Biz Pace Review, was to let America’s enemies know who they were dealing with when they faced a US Navy SEAL: “I’m an American warship — don’t tread on me.”

But now, amid the widespread outrage over government interference into the lives of Americans on every level, including our personal communications, individual health care choices, and our right to provide for our own safety and security, the Pentagon under orders from the Commander-In-Chief has decided it’s time to retire one of the longest standing symbols of the individual liberty that has for so long been the tenet of our free society.

On October 22nd of this year Naval commanders received the following email, ordering them to have their men remove the jack worn so proudly by members of our armed forces.

ALL:

WARCOM and GROUP TWO/ONE have pushed out the uniform policy for NWU III and any patches worn on the sleeve.
All personnel are only authorized to wear the matching “AOR” American Flag patch on the right shoulder. You are no longer authorized to wear the “Don’t Tread On Me” patch.

Again the only patch authorized for wear is the American flag on the right shoulder. Please pass the word to all.
Thanks.

Senior Enlisted Advisor
[Name Redacted]
Via ********.com

Though senior commanders refused to speak publicly about the changes, one SEAL stated what should be obvious:

Why would our leaders sell out our heritage? Why would they rob present and future sailors of our battle cry?

When a friend of mine asked his leadership the same question, he was told, “The Jack is too closely associated with radical groups.”

We must assume that this thought policeman embedded in the SEAL community is speaking of the Tea Party, whose flag (which also dates from the American Revolution) depicts a snake with the same defiant slogan as The Navy Jack.

This begs yet another question: Who defines “radical group”? The last time I checked, all military personnel are under oath to “support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The Tea Party stands for constitutional rights and founding principles of civil liberties and limited government. Radical? Not unless you’re a leftist hell-bent on destroying the foundations of our country. Or as the President has stated as the objective of his presidency, “to fundamentally transform” America.

Via The Daily Caller

In 2009 the Missouri Information Analysis Center released an analysis of militias and revolutionary movements operating within the continental United States. It was dubbed the MIAC report, and detailed specific signs indicative of those who may have a proclivity towards domestic terrorism or rebellion.

The Gadsden flag, which closely mirrors the Navy Jack and shares the same motto, and which was also used during the American Revolutionary War, was identified as political paraphernalia often used by radical extremist groups in the United States.

The report called for law enforcement officials on the local, state and Federal level to be on the look-out for those displaying variations of the Gadsden flag, as well as bumper stickers supporting the U.S. Constitution and third-party candidates like Ron Paul.

What should be clear from the government’s latest move to wipe away any official association with the Gadsden rattlesnake and motto is that those supporting any movement not 100% in line with official narrative are to be considered potential terrorists.

In today’s America, supporting the wrong cause, wearing the wrong clothes, pasting the wrong bumper sticker on your car, or saying the wrong thing on the internet can very easily lead to you being added to one of the government’s many red lists and identifying you as an enemy of the state.

They may not be rounding people up just yet for their transgressions against the state, but orders can be given at anytime under the banner of Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act to detain those who could pose a threat to the greater good.

Of course, things like that only happen in places like Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia.

This is America… Land of the Free.

[Ryan Ruck]

More brass gone...

Two Admirals Face Probe In Navy Bribery Scheme

November 8, 2013

Two U.S. admirals — including the director of naval intelligence — are under investigation as part of a major bribery scandal involving a foreign defense contractor, Navy officials announced Friday night.

Vice Adm. Ted “Twig” Branch, the service’s top intelligence officer, and Rear Adm. Bruce F. Loveless, the Navy’s director of intelligence operations, were placed on leave Friday, and their access to classified material was suspended, the Navy said in a statement.

Both admirals are being investigated for their ties to a Singapore-based defense contractor, Glenn Defense Marine Asia, whose chief executive was arrested in September on charges that he bribed other Navy officers into giving him classified or privileged information in exchange for prostitutes and cash.

Two Navy commanders and a senior Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent have already been arrested, and a captain was relieved of his ship’s command last month in connection with the case.

But the announcement that two admirals in charge of protecting the Navy’s secrets have been swept up in the investigation makes the crisis the worst to tar the Navy since the 1991 Tailhook scandal, when a convention of naval aviators sexually assaulted scores of women.

Navy officials said they were bracing for even more bad news to emerge from a corruption case that has expanded swiftly since it became public in September. “We do believe that other naval officers will likely be implicated in this scandal,” Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Navy’s chief spokesman, said in a telephone interview.

The Navy did not disclose why Loveless and Branch had drawn the scrutiny of investigators but said their alleged misconduct occurred prior to their current assignments and before they became admirals.

“There is no indication, nor do the allegations suggest, that in either case there was any breach of classified information,” Kirby said in a statement.

But a Navy official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case said the NCIS recently uncovered evidence of “personal misconduct” against Branch and Loveless as the investigation into Glenn Defense Marine widened.

Neither Branch nor Loveless has been charged with a crime or service violation, and both men retain their rank while the investigation proceeds, the Navy said. The decision to suspend their access to classified information was made by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

The suspension of two senior intelligence officials raises serious questions about whether national security may have been compromised because of improper contact between Navy officers and Glenn Defense Marine.

Prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego have charged the two Navy commanders with passing classified information about ship and submarine movements to Leonard Glenn Francis, a Malaysian national and the chief executive of Glenn Defense Marine.

Navy contracting officials raised suspicions about Francis — who is known as “Fat Leonard” in Navy circles because of his imposing girth — as far back as 2005. But prosecutors allege he was able to dodge scrutiny by bribing Navy officers and the NCIS agent for inside information about law enforcement probes and contract audits.

To recruit the moles, Francis plied the officers with female escorts, cash, paid travel and other perks, including tickets to a Lady Gaga concert in Thailand and a performance of “The Lion King” in Japan, according to court records.

Glenn Defense Marine has serviced and supplied Navy ships and submarines at ports around the Pacific for a quarter-century, providing fuel, tugboats, sewage disposal, wharfside security and other assistance.

Francis and his company were familiar faces to Navy brass, including the commanders of most vessels in the Pacific. The company was rewarded in 2011 with new contracts valued up to $200 million.

Prosecutors, however, allege that the firm routinely overbilled for everything from tugboats to fuel to sewage disposal, defrauding the Navy of more than $10 million.

Francis sought inside information on ship deployments and pressed at least one commander to steer aircraft carriers and other vessels to ports where his firm could easily overcharge the Navy for services, court documents allege.

Earlier Friday, Francis and one of the Navy commanders charged in the case, Michael Vannak Khem Misiewicz, appeared in federal court in San Diego for a procedural hearing. Misiewicz had been a rising star in the Navy; he escaped Cambodia’s “killing fields” as a child, then made a triumphant return to the country decades later as the skipper of a U.S. destroyer.

Prosecutors told the court that they would be seeking an order to prohibit defense attorneys from circulating or sharing evidence. They noted that the NCIS agent, John B. Beliveau II, is charged with giving sensitive law enforcement files to Francis to help him duck charges.

Francis is being held without bond because prosecutors have argued that, as a Malaysian citizen, he poses a flight risk. He was arrested in San Diego in September after investigators lured him to the United States in a sting operation. His attorney and a spokeswoman for Glenn Defense Marine have declined to comment on the allegations against him.

Another Glenn Defense Marine executive, Alex Wisidagama of Singapore, was arrested at the same time in San Diego and also faces bribery charges.

The second Navy commander, Jose Luis Sanchez, was arrested Wednesday in Tampa on charges that he gave classified information to Glenn Defense Marine in exchange for prostitutes and more than $100,000 in cash. Sanchez is a former senior logistics officer for the Navy’s 7th Fleet in Japan.

Charging documents show that Francis enjoyed a cozy and familiar relationship with the two commanders and the NCIS agent, referring to them as “bro” or “brudda” in e-mails and sending them photos of call girls he was planning to set them up with.

In return, the Navy officers playfully called Francis “Lion King” or “Big Bro.” Court records describe him as standing 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing 350 pounds.

Pentagon officials have identified Capt. Daniel Dusek, former commander of the USS Bonhomme Richard, as another target of the investigation. He has not been charged, but the Navy relieved him of command Oct. 2, citing the investigation.

The U.S. military has never been immune from contracting scandals, but it is extremely rare for senior uniformed commanders to face fraud or corruption charges.

It is unclear how well Branch or Loveless may have known Francis. But both admirals have spent parts of their careers deployed to Asia.

Branch, an aviator, previously was an executive assistant to the commander of the Pacific Fleet. He was promoted to vice admiral in July when he took over as director of naval intelligence.

Loveless assumed his current job at the Pentagon in February. He also commanded the U.S. Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Operations Center, based at Pearl Harbor, from 2009 to 2012.

Agents from the NCIS, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Defense Contract Audit Agency are working together on the probe. The criminal investigation is being overseen by the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego and Justice Department officials in Washington.

[vector7]

Obama aims 'wrecking operation' at military

Reaction to 'purge' of generals, flag officers, includes frustration, alarm, worry

Published: 10/30/2013 at 8:57 PM



By F. Michael Maloof and John Griffing

WASHINGTON – President Obama is aiming a “wrecking operation” at the U.S. military, according to a former Defense Department official who was reacting to a WND report about his dismissal of nine generals and flag officers so far during his second term.

And the official was joined by hundreds of commenters who responded to the story with blasts of criticism for the president.

WND reported earlier this week that Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, explained right away it looked like a part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.

“Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.

Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source said.

Frank Gaffney, founder and director of the Center for Security Policy and former Undersecretary of Defense for the Reagan Administration, cast his lot in with Vallely.

“President Obama is engaged in a wrecking operation on the U.S. military particularly, and under the guise of ‘fundamentally transforming America,’ doing what he can to remake society in his image,” he told WND.

Get “Court Disaster: How the CIA kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack.

Gaffney said he believes Obama may be attempting to install military rule or martial law as part of his plans, saying, “One of the issues that has been raised by colleagues of mine who are serious students of national security policy and practice is that a way of accelerating the transforming of America would be essentially dispensing with our constitutional form of government under the rubric of ‘emergency measures,’ martial law, a military shutdown of our society.

“Does the wrecking operation of the military have something to do with that particular purpose?” asked Gaffney.

Gaffney answers his own question by claiming the existence of an ongoing “purge.”

“Increasingly of late, there is effectively a purge going on of people of faith from the U.S. military, a social engineering of the institution of the military between homosexuals and women in combat, the evisceration of the military’s training resources and in some cases, senior leadership. Could you at some point get to a point where that military was willing to enforce martial law against the people of the United States under circumstances less than national emergency?

“It’s a conversation we ought to be having,” he said.

“When you look at the assaults on the Constitution Obama is engaged in, when you look at the assaults on the military Obama is engaged in, at least it is a scenario [martial law] that could both explain what he is doing and … what he has in mind,” Gaffney continued.

He contends, “The American people don’t want any part of where Obama is taking us, despite the fact they have elected him twice, but I believe that’s mostly because they are not aware of how truly radical and subversive Obama’s agenda is.”

A number of other retired generals told WND they aren’t commenting on the issue, apparently out of caution due to the potential for political retribution by the Obama administration.
Besides, even those who are retired remain linked to the Department of Defense through the pensions, benefits and other ties.

The reluctance to comment extended to the motives behind the handling of these generals’ individual cases, most of whom were dismissed for “personal misbehavior.”

“Yes, I have my own personal thoughts on the matter,” one retired general told WND, “but they are most likely just as authoritative as any other citizen.”

Vallely lacks those inhibitions, charging the White House won’t investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

Public comments that followed WND’s report on the firing of the generals and flag officers was anonymous, but pointed none-the-less.

“If we don’t impeach Obama SOON, it will be too late for America and Americans,” wrote Geneva Phoenix.

“Barry’s just following the communist playbook. Stalin did the same thing when he came to power…,” said Ernie Kaputnik.

“Obammy is purging the military. He is doing it for two reasons 1) To help destroy America’s ability to protect itself and so it will have less standing in the world. 2) To advance his I’m-better-than-GOD agenda,” added Old Salty Dog99.

“Obama is the cancer within the body of America. It is metastasizing now, and spreading that cancer thru the land…,” wrote Alfred King of Wessex.

Other readers compared Obama’s actions to those of Germany’s Adolf Hitler, or the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin.

Three of the nine firings just this year were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements in the area that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He was immediately relieved of his command and retired.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends that aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

He was relieved of his command by Ham for allegedly groping a civilian. However, there has been no assault or sexual misconduct charge filed against him with the military Judge Advocates General’s Office.

Six others were removed for a variety of alleged misconduct. They include Army Brig. Gen. Bryan Roberts, who took command of Fort Jackson in 2011; Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command; Marine Corps Major Gen. Charles M. M. Gurganus, regional commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan; Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr., as the 58th superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.; Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command; and Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, commander of the 20th Air Force.

[vector7]

Did You Catch the Ironic Part in Obama’s Veterans Day Speech?

Nov. 11, 2013 3:14pm Fred Lucas

President Barack Obama on Monday heralded one of the oldest living veterans in America, even talking about his trip to the nation’s capital this year as part of the Honor Flight program.


President Barack Obama placed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. (Getty Images/Mark Wilson)

That would be the same Honor Flight program that brought veterans to Washington, D.C., last month who entered the World War II Memorial in defiance of the government shutdown.

Barricades were placed around the World War II Memorial and other monuments on the National Mall to keep visitors out during the shutdown. Some veterans, aided by members of Congress, ignored the barricades and went to visit the memorial anyway.

Richard Overton, 107, of Austin, Texas, was not part of the group that visited in October, but went with a group of veterans in May.
It was nevertheless veterans from Honor Flight who were initially barred from seeing the open-air monuments in Washington.

“This is the life of one American veteran living proud and strong in the land he helped keep free. Earlier this year, the folks at Honor Flight Austin brought Richard to Washington, D.C., for the first time and he and his fellow veterans paid their respects at the World War II Memorial,” Obama said during a Veterans Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery.

“Then they visited the memorial to Martin Luther King Jr. and as Richard sat in a wheelchair beneath that great marble statute, he wept, and the crowd that gathered around him wept too to see one of the oldest living veterans of World War II bear witness to a day, to the progress of a nation he thought might never come. Richard Overton, this American veteran, is 107 years old,” Obama continued. “We are honored that he is here with us today.”

Obama talked of Overton being present during key moments in the war.

“He was there at Perl Harbor when the battleships were still smoldering,” Obama said. “He was there at Okinawa. He was there at Iwo Jima, where he said ‘I only got out of there by the grace of God.’”

“When the war ended, Richard headed home to Texas to a nation bitterly divided by race, and his service on the battlefield was not always matched by the respect that he deserved at home. But this veteran held his head high,” Obama continued. “He carried on and lived his life with dignity and built his wife a house with his own two hands. He went back to work in the furniture business. In time, he served as a courier in the Texas state Capitol where he worked for four governors and made more friends than most of us do in a lifetime. And today Richard still lives in the house that he built all those years ago, rakes his own lawn, and every Sunday, he hops in his 1971 Ford truck and drives one of the nice ladies in his neighborhood to church.”

[American Patriot]

WND EXCLUSIVE

Obama 'weakening military in unprecedented ways'

Expert: Top officers' silence allows radical social experimentation to wreck armed forces

Published: 2 days ago

F. Michael Maloof About | Email | Archive F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.

Follow Subscribe to feed

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

519




WASHINGTON – The U.S. military, which has seen generals and other high-level officers relieved of duty at an unprecedented rate during the Obama administration, is in trouble largely because of the radical social experimentation being forced upon it, according to the Center for Military Readiness.

CMR’s president, Elaine Donnelly, said in an interview with WND that officers have gotten the Obama administration’s message of political correctness – “and most have been virtually silent ever since.”


Under Obama, she said, budgets for the military have been slashed, SEAL Team Six members exposed as the ones who killed Osama bin Laden, open homosexuality introduced and service members pressed into service to hold an umbrella over the president during the rain.

During the Reagan administration, Donnelly was appointed by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. And in 1992, Pres. George H. W. Bush likewise appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

Donnelly says Obama has done “great damage” to the military by taking away resources and imposing “heavy burdens of social experimentation.”

“But most flag and general officers are following orders, keeping their heads down and, in my opinion, letting down the troops,” she said.

Although the president is “weakening our military in unprecedented ways,” she reiterated, “the brass has remained largely silent since the spring of 2010.”

And she believes the Obama administration is taking advantage of this silence among military leaders.

“Due to dissembling and deception from the military’s uniformed and civilian leaders, President Obama is seizing the opportunity to radically change and weaken the culture of the military,” Donnelly told WND. “The president’s objective is ‘gender diversity’ in the combat arms, and the Joint Chiefs, so far, have persuaded Congress that they need not intervene.”

“Liberal activists,” she said, are seeking to remove all military opposition “to their most radical objectives.”

In this connection, she said the Military Leadership Diversity Commission has recommended in its “DoD-endorsed report” that officers’ promotions be contingent on support for “gender diversity metrics,” which she says is another name for quotas.

“This is not a secret – the problem is there, hidden in plain sight,” Donnelly said.

Part of the problem, she points out, is that the armed forces defend individual rights, but the military itself is governed by different rules under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“Under the UCMJ,” she said, “members of the military are not free to publicly disparage the commander-in-chief, Congress and other officials. This is as it should be, but the (Obama) administration is taking advantage of the military’s culture of obedience,” she said.

“Because everyone must follow orders, the military is [no longer] a conservative institution. It is on the cutting edge of social experimentation.”

WND has been reporting on the removal of large numbers of commanding officers and generals since Obama took office, including nine such cases this year alone. Several retired generals have accused the Obama administration of a “purge” and have linked the removals to political and social agendas.

Gen. Carter Ham was one of three generals who later retired following the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA special mission facility in Benghazi, Libya. He had criticized the lack of timely reinforcements to protect these facilities. Following the terrorist attack on Benghazi, Ham said he had wanted to send reinforcements to stop the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, two of whom were former SEALs.

While others contend Ham was given a stand-down order but defied it, he said he didn’t get the order. He was relieved of his command and retired.

Two other senior officers were immediately relieved of their commands along with Ham.

One was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, who commanded the Carrier Strike Group in the area at the time. After Gaouette contended aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire, he was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Another was Maj. Gen. Ralph Baker, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.


Donnelly leveled some criticism at Ham, noting he was an adviser to the committee that investigated the jihadist attack at Fort Hood, which produced a report calling the attack “workplace violence.”

Ham also served as co-chair of the Comprehensive Review Working Group, or CRWG, which, contents Donnelly, rather than a study was more of a vehicle “to promote repeal of the 1993 ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] law.”

She added that Ham was “largely absent” during a process controlled by Jeh Johnson, who has been general counsel of the Department of Defense since 2009. Last month Obama nominated Johnson, a civil and criminal trial lawyer prior to government service, to become the next secretary of homeland security. The Senate will begin consideration the nomination this week.

Donnelly had uncovered the DOD Inspector General report that revealed Johnson had discussed the results of a survey among military personnel about LGBT – before the survey was conducted.

That survey, which critics say Johnson evidently manipulated, showed military personnel had no objection to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“The military has no mechanism to find out why people leave the military,” Donnelly said. “I think they really do not want to know.

“There is no question about social issues on the exit survey form,” she added. “This allows the administration to claim all is going well. When Jeh Johnson goes before the Senate for confirmation, he will no doubt make such claims.”

Yet Donnelly said problems under LGBT law will only increase as time passes. Sexual assaults have been on the rise, she noted, principally male-on-male assaults.

She pointed out that the administration had dropped any legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, within weeks after a lame-duck Congress voted to repeal the 1993 law.

In characterizing the direction of the administration as pushing its social experimentation on the Defense Department, Donnelly noted that the DOD has extended benefits to same-sex couples.

“Now, the ‘Ts’ in LGBT are pushing for recognition and rights, too,” she said. “Flag and general officers have been almost completely silent on all of this. I wish there were signs of resistance, but the administration is using the military’s culture of obedience to push an extremely liberal agenda that former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen called ‘Diversity as a strategic imperative.’”

Even the Defense Department’s chief of personnel and readiness, she said, has called “diversity and inclusion” critical to “mission success.”

Rather than a “purge,” as some generals have called it, Donnelly says, “I see capitulation at the top levels of military leadership. It’s up to Congress, and civilians who vote for Congress, to start exercising responsible oversight, and to insist on a restoration of high standards and sound priorities in the military. It is the only one we have.”

A number of former military, including former Florida Congressman Allen West, are alarmed over an exit of top-level military officers. West now is calling for congressional oversight hearings into what he calls an “alarming trend” of dismissals and firings of high-ranking military officers by the Obama administration, firings that in a number of cases appear to be political.
West, who as congressman served on the House Armed Services Committee, said he recently had been in contact with Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon – calling for hearings “to determine exactly why” so many officers, especially senior officers, are being given the boot.

“McKeon needs to look at this problem,” West told WND. “There needs to be transparency. It is important to get the truth.”

Others have even stronger feelings.

In a recent interview with WND, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who was the deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, similarly accused Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, of orchestrating the imposition of “political correctness” throughout the military, affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.


Valerie Jarrett

In pinning the blame on Jarrett, reportedly Obama’s closest and most influential adviser, Vallely suggested her far-left, politically correct influence is forcing senior officers to watch everything military personnel say and do.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, says in a story by The Blaze, that Jarrett influences nearly every policy issue at the White House.

“She seems to have her tentacles into every issue and every topic,” Chaffetz says. “Her name ultimately always comes up.”

The Washington Post has written about Jarrett as the president’s “mysterious” adviser.

And author Ed Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times magazine, said in a Washington Times report that Jarrett was the secret “architect” of the Obama strategy to shut down the government and blame it on congressional Republicans.

London’s Daily Mail newspaper notes that Jarrett’s insider nickname is “Night Stalker” because of her exclusive, late-night access to the presidential family’s private quarters.
According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

In addition to Vallely, a number of prominent retired generals – from Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, to Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – have also gone on the record with WND on this issue.

They’ve described Obama’s actions as nothing less than an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.

Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, said Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another military source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.
“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

The future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, added Boykin, since colonels who would become generals are also being relieved of duty if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” told WND, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true. I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past.”

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Likewise, retired Navy Capt. Joseph John tells WND that the “bigger picture” is that “the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views,” said John.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/obama-wea...WmOTIRBfFwo.99