Trump Supporters Tired Of D.C. Swamp Stir Up Talks Of New Political Party

The simple truth is that EVERY time TRUE conservatism is used, it wins. The Republican Party is NOT a true Conservative party anymore, and hasn’t been for a very long time. The establishment of the Republican Party is honestly only shades of gray different from the democrats they claim to be the alternative to.

We NEED a true conservative party, and now is the time. As long as we ran a forceful race, not being timid about getting the conservative message out, we COULD win. If we’re weak in fighting the battle, we’ll split the vote and hand power back to the anti-God, anti-American, baby-murdering, illegal immigrant catering, socialist/communist/Marxist democrats.

We must proceed carefully, wisely, and forcefully, but proceed we must.

---

---

Bold Leadership Begets Bold Changes – Trump Supporters Tired Of D.C. Swamp Stir Up Talks Of New Political Party – enVolve
— Read on en-volve.com/2019/06/07/bold-leadership-begets-bold-changes-trump-supporters-tired-of-d-c-swamp-stir-up-talks-of-new-political-party/

Military Readiness: 1940 and 2018 – Same Old Situation

“Navy readiness is “heading in the wrong direction,” the Government Accountability Office told the Senate this morning, with only 15 percent of Navy F-35Cs rated “fully mission capable.” At the same hearing, a four-star admiral acknowledged three nuclear-powered attack submarines were still stuck awaiting overhaul, with the USS Boise expected to be out of action for a total of six years.”

Link to cited article:  Three Attack Subs ‘Not Certified To Dive’; Navy F-35s at 15 Percent Readiness

---

---

In 1940, just as in 1914, America was weak militarily, which emboldened the aggression of evil powers against us.  After years of sacrificing security and strength for comfort, we find ourselves in the same situation.  Isn’t it funny how history repeats itself for those too lazy and irresponsible to learn it?

I appreciate Gen. Mattis’ decree that readiness be improved, but unless congress acknowledges that freedom has a price and demonstrates a willingness to pay it, it’s just an unfunded mandate.  Our increasingly corrupt and power hungry politicians have been using our tax dollars to buy votes instead of securing our freedom by ensuring a strong military.  Nor does it help that our increasingly political yes-men military leadership have been hiding the extent of our readiness problem to further their own careers.  They fail to speak the truth about the situation until they are safely retired, earning a handsome salary in some consulting or lobbying job which their military position secured for them.  Then they snipe from the sidelines.  I have no respect for such people.

The true depths to which our level of military readiness have descended have largely been hidden from the American public.  They take for granted that the military will simply always be there, and always be ready to take on all comers.  One has to but look at the increased aggression and boldness of Russia, China, and various muslim nations to see the truth.  Our military and its equipment are worn out from nearly two decades of continuous war.  Our potential adversaries sense this, and sense opportunity to advance their interests.  Just as Japan and Germany did in 1940 and 1941.

+

---

---

 

Trump Says Military Will Build Wall

BUILD IT.  Sacrifice a couple of the albatross F-35s and build it.  Better yet, start a Go-fund-me page.  In about 10 minutes, we’ll have enough money to build the wall 60 feet deep, 60 feet high, 30 feet thick for the whole 2,000 miles of the border.  Another option would be selling bricks with your name on them to be included in the wall.  They would sell EASILY at $100 each, but even if you only charged $10, you could sell enough to build the wall 10 times over.

Build the freakin’ wall, even if you have to shut down the government to get the funding.

+

---

---

Trump says military to build border wall if Democrats refuse

By MATTHEW DALY | December 11, 2018

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump sought Tuesday to pressure Democratic congressional leaders into supporting his demand for billions of dollars to build his promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, threatening to have the military build it “if Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country.”

Army Unveils New 6-Event Physical Fitness Test to Prepare Troops for COMBAT

Number 1, I love that this test is being redesigned with evaluating COMBAT-READINESS in mind.

Number 2, I love that their intent is to make the test GENDER NEUTRAL, designing the test requirements to reflect the requirements of different career fields.

And lastly, I LOVE that the leadership who will be deciding the fate of their soldiers will be held to the same standards.

That does mean that senior leaders in brigades or battalions will be held to the exact same standards as their much-younger soldiers, Frost said. To command at any level, leaders will have to pass the ACFT standards set for their unit or job.

This is not only the way it SHOULD be in our military, but the way it MUST be if we are to have the most lethal and cost-effective fighting force possible.  The political correctness in our military must stop.

---

---

Army unveils new, six-event physical fitness test to help ready troops for combat

 

WASHINGTON — The Army will roll out its long-planned update to its physical fitness test during the next two years, with a new six-event assessment that will dramatically improve the service’s ability to predict how a soldier will perform in combat, senior officials said Monday.

By October 2020, the new test, dubbed the Army Combat Fitness Test, will replace the three-event Army Physical Fitness Test, which was used for nearly four decades, said Maj. Gen. Malcolm Frost, the chief of the Army’s Center for Initial Military Training at Fort Eustis in Virginia. By that time, soldiers across the force will have to pass the new test twice a year to remain in the service.

But the test itself still needs some tweaking, Frost said Monday at the Pentagon.

While the service’s top officials have finalized the events that the ACFT will include, they have yet to determine what requirements soldiers must meet in those exercises to pass the test, the general said. The Army will begin training soldiers in 60 battalions across the service in October to take the test in a year-long study to determine its ultimate event standards.

“We don’t need to rush into this and we’re not going to,” said Sgt. Maj. of the Army Dan Dailey, the service’s top enlisted soldier. “We’re going to take about year to do a lot of assessment of this… because we don’t have all the answers yet.”

The events chosen are designed to mimic actions that soldiers regularly perform in combat situations or evaluate specific aspects of physical fitness, Dailey and Frost said.

The events are:

*

Strength deadlift: Soldiers will perform three repetitions of deadlift at the heaviest weight they are capable of between 120 and 420 pounds. The deadlift replicates picking up heavy equipment or a wounded comrade in combat.

*

Standing power throw: Soldiers will throw a 10-pound medicine ball backward as far as they can. The exercise tests muscular explosive power, replicating aiding a fellow soldier over an obstacle or moving rapidly across uneven terrain.

*

Hand-release push-up: Soldiers will perform as many hand-release push-ups as possible in two minutes. In a hand-release push-up, soldiers lift their hands and arms from the ground at the bottom of the push-up.

*

Sprint, drag, carry: Soldiers will twice sprint up and down a 25-meter lane, drag a 90-pound sled up and down the lane, and carry two 40-pound kettlebell weights up and down the lane. The exercises are meant to simulate pulling a soldier to safety, moving quickly to cover or carrying gear.

*

Leg tuck: Hanging from a pull-up bar, soldiers will lift their legs up and down touching their knees or thighs to their elbows as many times as possible during two minutes. The exercise strengthens core muscles, requiring more strength than traditional sit-ups

*

Two-mile run: Soldiers will complete the test with a two-mile run, as they must in the APFT. However, Frost said, soldiers will have only five minutes of rest between the leg tuck and the run, which will likely slow their times by 45 seconds to two minutes compared to the current test.

The new fitness test will be designed to be gender and age neutral, Frost said. That does not mean every soldier in the Army will be required to achieve the same base scores, however. Among the aspects that the Army will begin to study in October is whether certain military occupational specialties — such as infantrymen or cannon crew members — should have higher test score standards than others or whether certain units require higher standards, he said.

That does mean that senior leaders in brigades or battalions will be held to the exact same standards as their much-younger soldiers, Frost said. To command at any level, leaders will have to pass the ACFT standards set for their unit or job.

Feedback from some soldiers on the new test submitted through official channels has been “overwhelmingly positive,” according to the Army.

“As we all know, physical fitness training can become rather monotonous if people train the same way,” said Michael McGurk, the director of research and analysis at the Army’s Center for Initial Military Training. “So, a lot of them saw this as a great change and how it required them to use different muscles.”

But privately and on social media, some soldiers expressed mixed reactions to the new test. Many of them who said they were in favor of the updated fitness assessment agreed with Dailey’s and Frost’s assertions that it would better prepare soldiers to fight, rather than simply to pass a test.

But some others raised concerns, including the need for specific equipment to train for the test, risk of injury if some of the tasks are not performed with proper form and whether the current test needs replacing at all.

Army Maj. Rick Montcalm, the deputy director of the Army’s Modern War Institute at West Point, outlined several of those common concerns expressed privately by soldiers about the Army Combat Fitness Test in a recent essay published on the institute’s website before the service officially approved the new test.

Montcalm described the new test as “much more intensive” and agreed the ACFT would better assess soldiers’ abilities to fight. Among his chief concerns, however, is the cost to outfit units with the equipment needed for the tests.

Frost said the Army intends to supply each Army battalion with 15 sets of the gear needed, including the medicine balls, the bar and weights for deadlifts, the pull-up bars, weight sleds and kettlebells. In total, the gear is expected initially to cost the Army about $30 million, he said.

“That’s a big budget pill to swallow after almost four decades of a nearly cost-free physical fitness assessment,” Montcalm wrote. “That also doesn’t address associated costs of equipment replacement over time or potentially reconfiguring on-base fitness facilities to allow soldiers to train for these news tasks.”

The equipment is expected to last units about 10 years, Frost said.

Montcalm suggested the exercises could largely be done using actual combat gear, instead of fielding new equipment to each Army battalion.

“Rather than purchasing kettlebells to simulate carrying ammunition, why not carry ammunition cans?” he wrote. “… it would be easy to fill them with a set amount of weight and use them for the test.”

The ACFT is the culmination of nearly seven years of study of soldiers’ physical fitness capabilities, Frost said. While the old test was an effective tool for measuring general physical fitness, the new test is designed specifically to measure how fit a soldier is to perform combat tasks — such as loading artillery rounds, conducting long patrols, evacuating wounded comrades or hauling supplies on the battlefield, he said.

“The current physical fitness test is only a 40 percent predictor … for effectiveness of performing your tasks in combat,” Frost said. “This [new] test is approximately an 80 percent predictor of performance in combat.”

If soldiers embrace the new test, he said, it should help change the service’s overall attitude toward physical fitness, an aspect Montcalm raised in his essay.

“The challenge we have — too many folks only train for the current test to pass the test,” Frost said. “So this is a cultural problem that needs to be changed in the Army, where we train on all aspects of physical fitness so we are better prepared for combat.

“It’s simple — if you are training for this [new] PT test, then you are training for combat.”

Link to article:  https://inmilitary.com/army-unveils-new-six-event-physical-fitness-test-to-help-ready-troops-for-combat/?utm_source=IME&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_content=https:inmilitary.comarmy-unveils-new-six-event-physical-fitness-test-to-help-ready-troops-for-combat&utm_campaign=20180711IME

---

---

OUR Military on OUR Border? Yes, we should.

Our military is guarding other nations’ borders all over the world. It’s time we bring much of our military home to guard OUR borders.

Don’t waste you’re breath trying the “Posse Comitatus” argument against using our military on the border. The Posse Comitatus Act was intended to prevent the military from being used as DOMESTIC law enforcement, potentially by a tyrannical government. Putting OUR military on OUR border is defending OUR nation against EXTERNAL threats, which is WHY WE HAVE A MILITARY.
+

Lt Col Ralph Peters Goes Full Retard on Gun Control

Lt Col Peters, I have agreed with you on so much in the past, but here is where we part company. You are now attacking my fundamental rights, which I can not stand by and allow you to do without response.

You attempt to give yourself absolute moral authority and “unimpeachable” qualifications by stating “I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs.” How does that qualify you to opine about limiting or ELIMINATING MY RIGHTS? It does not. I’ve written lots of checks. Does that give me the authority to tell someone else that they can’t have or write checks? Obviously not. I’ve eaten lots of food, most of which I purchase at grocery stores. Does that give me the authority or tell someone they can’t either shop at a grocery store or grow their own food if they choose? Again, obviously not. However, that’s the faulty logic you use in an attempt to establish your authority.

You then display your actual ignorance on this topic when you say “These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting.” Yes, the AR-15, AK47 and similar weapons were originally designed as military weapons. No one denies that, but to deny the FACTS that these guns also have peaceful uses is ignorant, dishonest, or both. When you say ARs, and even AKs, are not used for hunting, that is patently and absolutely false. They are rapidly becoming the most popular weapons for that use. AR pattern rifles chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO and similar calibers are ideally suited for varmint hunting and small to medium game. AR pattern rifles in larger calibers such as .308 Win/7.62 NATO are ideal for larger game like deer, elk, etc. There are bolt action and other type rifles used for similar purposes chambered in these EXACT SAME calibers. Being a “scary looking” military-style gun does not limit the usefulness of a gun for LAW ABIDING purpose. Then you say “They’re lousy for target shooting,” which shows the exact same type and level of ignorance or malice on your part. These weapons are used recreationally by millions of people for target shooting and competition ALL THE TIME. Where are you getting your so-called facts?

The next asinine statement you make is “The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun.” Really? With any shotgun common to bird hunting today, such as a Remington 1100 or Beretta pump or semi-automatic, Nikolas Cruz could have easily killed and wounded just as many, and perhaps more people than he did. Using buckshot, he could potentially have hit more than one target at once. Have you ever seen what a deer slug fired from a shotgun can do? It’s a lot more gruesome than the damage a .223 can inflict, and at close range it would probably go through more than one body, potentially killing more than one person with each shot. Your ignorance continues unabated…

Next, you say “The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms.” Seriously? If the Las Vegas shooter actually slowed down to aim rather than using the spray-and-pray method, which is about all you can do with a bump-stock equipped weapon, he could have EASILY and PRECISELY killed just as many or more with a bolt action rifle. From his vantage point, he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, sir, you go full left retard with this quote. “That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” You can’t honestly be this ignorant of the founding fathers intent. You are a college graduate, and former commissioned officer in the United States military. I would expect more from you. You apply the MODERN, often intentionally misunderstood meaning of “well regulated.” Let me clear things up for you.

►To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”◄
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

In other words, “well regulated” means REGULAR as in similar in makeup. Citizens were to be armed with weapons similar to those in use by the military SPECIFICALLY to serve as a check and balance to government. Hunting was not mentioned as that was an assumed part of normal life. Have you not figured out that EVERYTHING in our form of government was designed to serve as a check and balance to EVERYTHING ELSE in our government? When those checks and balances are eroded or ignored, what then? When a benevolent government is freed from the constraints placed upon it, it has almost always throughout history become MALEVOLENT and oppressive towards the citizens it is supposed to serve. Our founders were painfully aware of this, and expressly included a provision in our Constitution to act as a final failsafe to return our government to its constitutional reservation should it stray. Are you honestly that ignorant of history?

To add insult to injury, you then personally attack the character and patriotism of EVERY American who has not served in the military or as a member of law enforcement. You say, “As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.” I know many people who have never served in either capacity who would willingly lay down their life for this country should that be required. You have abandoned sound logic, and resorted to the emotional attacks of a COWARD, sir.

Again, you attempt to establish some form of absolute moral authority when you say, “As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming.” I, too, swore the very same oath you did, as have many thousands of others, and will uphold it until my last breath. Apparently, I and many others under that oath seem to more fully understand what it means than you do.

Nearing the end of your painfully ignorant piece, which I am becoming convinced is also intentionally deceitful, you posit the following: “Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?” My question to you, sir, is do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that any of our founding fathers, or “geniuses” as you snarkily refer to them, would have intended for the law-abiding citizenry to be disarmed and unable to defend themselves should someone decide to employ their weapon illegally and with malice? Do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that the founding fathers intended for the citizenry to sit back and await the arrival of law enforcement to save them from a hostile person intent on killing them? You can’t possibly be this ignorant, can you?

Moving on to your next emotional, ignorant question, “We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?” I have some questions for you, Mr. Peters. Where have ALL of these mass shootings taken place? ANSWER: In “gun-free” zones where LAW-ABIDING citizens could not carry firearms to defend themselves and stop an attacker before it turned into a “mass” killing. Where are the places in America where the most people are murdered with firearms? ANSWER: In cities that already have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Do criminals obey laws? ANSWER: If I have to answer this for you, you need to ensure you never appear on television, write an article, or open your mouth in public ever again. But as for pure numbers of children murdered, why don’t I hear you decrying the slaughter of MILLIONS of children via abortion? There are more children murdered in this country EVERY. SINGLE. DAY by abortion than ALL PEOPLE OF ANY AGE who are killed by rifles of ALL types in an ENTIRE YEAR. Where’s your indignation about that?

Your next question, “How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?” That’s a great question. Let’s look at a few facts to help establish what “common sense” on this issue really is, shall we? Most mass shootings are over before law enforcement arrives. Either the murderer has left the scene, or has killed a large number of people before SOMEONE WITH A GUN shows up to stop him. As we previously established, ALL of these shootings were CHOSEN by the murderer largely because they were soft targets full of unarmed people. In all cases, when the murderer was confronted by a good-guy with a gun, the killing stopped. With that in mind, it would be COMMON SENSE and the most decent thing to do to have MORE good-guys with guns to counter any bad guys with guns, and more importantly to serve as a DETERRENT to those who intend harm to others. You continue by saying “As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.” ALL the evidence and actual historic facts DO NOT back up your assertion. Is it possible that some might be hit by friendly fire as you assert when you say ““Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger?” Yes, it is. But, again, what you are attempting to pass off as logic is flawed. Do I only eat raw meat because there’s a chance I’ll be burned on a stove or campfire? Do I refrain from using pens and pencils because I might write a misspelled word? Do we ban all cars because there are a few drunk drivers? As a military officer, and supposedly a leader in the military, you should understand the concept of “calculated risk.” It’s a SURE BET that many will die if the murderer is allowed to shoot at will, without opposition. There’s a VERY HIGH probability that the shooter will cease targeting innocent people when confronted by someone with a gun because they now have to defend themselves. There is also a HIGH PROBABILITY that even with friendly fire casualties, fewer will die than if you allow the shooter to remain unopposed. You just haven’t thought this out, have you?

Your emotional diatribe is completely void of sound reasoning or fact. Based on your history debating and discussing other issues, this surprises and disappoints me. I’m sure in your lengthy military career you must have heard the saying “One ‘aw sh**’ wipes out a hundred ‘atta-boys.’” In one article, you have managed to do exactly that, sir.

---

---

I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

By Ralph Peters

February 22, 2018

Guns and I go back a long way.

My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.

My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.

I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .)

And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.

These are cop-killer weapons, too.

The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.

As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.

Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?

How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?

How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?

The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.

As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.

When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.

Link to article:  https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/

+

 

Secretary of Defense lifts all restrictions on transgender service members

I guess now it’s only damaging to “good order and discipline,” and a financial burden to the service if you’re a white Christian male.

See further commentary embedded in the article below.

---

---

By Michael Swaney|June 30th, 2016

• Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announcing the restrictions on transgender military have been lifted. (DoD)

The Secretary of Defense announced this afternoon that all transgender military personnel will be allowed to serve without facing separation or disbarment from service.

In July of 2015, Secretary Carter commissioned a study which was conducted with the partnership of medical professionals and the Rand Corporation- the American nonprofit global policy think tank that offers research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces.  (In other words, the paid for the political answer they were looking for.)

Before entering any branch of service, the new policy states transgender must be certified by a doctor as stable in their new gender for at least eighteen months.  (Correct me if I’m wrong, but scientifically speaking, a transgender person is NEVER “stable” in their “new” gender.  Genetically speaking, you are always the male or female you were born to be.  No dicectomy or addadictomy surgery will change that, and you must take hormones for the rest of your life to suppress the NATURAL tendencies of your body.  You are what your are.)

In Total Reversal, Welsh Admits Air Force is On Verge of Manpower Collapse

A leader cannot lead without the trust and loyalty of those who are being asked to follow him. Such is the case with Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Mark A. Welsh III. He has come to epitomize the type of “leader” remaining in our military following the Obama purge. Leaders who refuse to do anything other than salute smartly and say “YES, SIR!“, even when the orders being followed are blatantly destroying the nation and Constitution they have sworn to defend. There is no conceivable way Welsh could NOT have known the enormity of the problem we were facing, yet he went ahead with, and even accelerated the mortal wound of a manpower cut. Now, in the face of a tsunami largely of his own creation, he seems to grow a spine and a pair of open eyes. My only question is WHY NOW??? Is this like a deathbed confession? Does he actually possess the character to do the right thing even at the risk of throwing away his career and retirement? Based on what I have seen from the “leaders” groomed for senior positions by the system created and perpetuated by these same people, you can just say I’m skeptical. The usual pattern for these cowards is to sit and twiddle thumbs until they retire, move on to some cushy consulting job, and suddenly develop enough of a conscience to start sniping from the outside where they have little to no effect. I’m sorry, but if our “leaders” aren’t willing to fall on their sword for what is RIGHT while they are still in a position to effect change and INSPIRE FOLLOWERS, they are not the kind of people our military, or our nation need.

---

---

By Tony Carr|December 2nd, 2015|Air Force / Air Power, Featured, General, Government and Society, Leadership and Managing, Military, Military Families, National Defense, Organizations, Politics, Reform, Veterans

“Virtually every mission area” faces critical manning shortages, and the Air Force risks burning airmen out. “We’re at 82 to 85 percent manning levels in virtually every mission area,” Welsh said during a discussion Tuesday at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. “We can’t reach in someplace and grab more manpower to fix a problem anymore. And so we have got to figure out different ways of using our people in a more efficient way or we will wear them out. And if we lose them, we lose everything.”

Military Men and Women, you MUST Not Obey That Order

All men and women in the military, and concerned citizens, need to watch this video.

I have often spoken of the purge taking place in the military at the hands of Barack Hussein Obama.  Bill Whittle does an exceptional job of explaining how this is taking place, and why Americans SHOULD be worried about it.  There are very, VERY few leaders in the military left today who will refuse to obey unlawful, unconstitutional orders from those careerist officers appointed above them, who are in turn receiving their orders from Obama.  Most who would refuse have either left, or been kicked out. 

Men and women in the military, you MUST refuse to obey such orders.  You MUST honor your oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  It is under attack now, and has almost been put out of its misery.  You are the last line of defense between a tyrannical, out of control government and the citizenry wondering if they will be citizens or subjects when they wake up tomorrow.  If you fail to act… yes, FAIL… then we will be forced to act. 

Do your duty, and HONOR YOUR OATH.

+

America Waking Up to the Reality That We Need to Brace for Impact

The pilot was locked out of the cockpit. That phrase finally revealed the full horror of the crash of Germanwings flight 9525. Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz waited for the pilot to leave the cockpit, then locked the door to prevent his re-entry. After which Lubitz, for reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable, deliberately steered the jet into a harrowing 8 minute plunge ending in an explosive 434 mph impact
with a rocky mountainside. 150 men, women and children met an immediate, unthinkably violent death.

Lubitz, in his single-minded madness, couldn’t be stopped because anyone who could change the jet’s disastrous course was locked out. It’s hard to imagine the growing feelings of fear and helplessness that the passengers felt as the unforgiving landscape rushed up to meet them. Hard – but not impossible.

Because America is in trouble. We feel the descent in the pits of our stomachs. We hear the shake and rattle of structures stressed beyond their limits. We don’t know where we’re going anymore, but do know it isn’t good. And above all, we feel helpless because Barack Obama has locked us out.

He locked the American people out of his decision to seize the national healthcare system. Locked us out when we wanted to know why the IRS was attacking conservatives. He locked us out of having a say in his decision to tear up our immigration laws, and to give over a trillion dollars in benefits to those who broke those laws.

Obama locked out those who advised against premature troop withdrawals. Locked out the intelligence agencies who issued warnings about the growing threat of ISIS . He locked out anyone who could have interfered with his release of five Taliban terror chiefs in return for one U.S. military deserter.

And of course, Barack Obama has now locked out Congress, the American people, and our allies as he strikes a secret deal with Iran to determine the timeline (not prevention) of their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Was Andreas Lubitz depressed, insane, or abysmally evil when he decided to lock that cockpit door and listen to no voices other than those in his head? Did he somehow believe himself to be doing the right thing?

The voice recordings from the doomed aircraft reveal that as the jet began its rapid descent, the passengers were quiet. There was probably some nervous laughter, confusion, a bit of comforting chatter with seat mates, followed by a brief period in which anxiety had not yet metastasized into terror.

It was only near the end of the 8 minute plunge that everyone finally understood what was really happening. Only near the end when they began to scream.

Like those passengers, a growing number of Americans feel a helpless dread as they come to the inescapable conclusion that our nation’s decline is an act of choice rather than of chance. The choice of one man who is in full control of our 8 year plunge. A man who has locked everyone out.

– Author unknown

---

---

Obama Promises To Break Judge’s Amnesty Injunction – REMOVE AND ARREST HIM NOW

Obama is so far beyond the need for impeachment that you can’t even see the top of the list of impeachable offenses from here. He has violated a long list of court orders and decisions, failed to enforce laws he is sworn to enforce, created “laws” which he has no authority to create, selectively enforced laws against his opponents violating the equal protections clause AND his job description in Article 2, and he has given aid and comfort to the enemies of America. This tyrant must be REMOVED. Attach whatever word or description to that concept that you wish. Congress won’t impeach and arrest him, so either the military must honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution by removing him, or the people are going to have to do the job. Either way, it must be done. It is the first and most important step to saving America.

---

---

Obama Promises To Break Judge’s Amnesty Injunction

Posted By Neil Munro On 8:20 AM 02/18/2015

Despite the unambiguous Feb. 16 injunction from a federal judge, President Barack Obama said he will press ahead with his plans to launch his unpopular unilateral amnesty.

EBAMA – The Deadliest Disease Known to Man

America: A Nation on Her Death Bed

What is the single biggest reason for this decay in our society?
Biblical illiteracy.
+
+

---

50 Facts That Show How Far America Has Fallen In This Generation

Posted on September 19, 2014 by Michael Snyder

What has happened to America?  Please show these numbers to anyone that does not believe that the United States is in decline.  It is time for all of us to humble ourselves and face the reality of what has happened to our once great nation.  For those of us that love America, it is heartbreaking to watch the foundations of our society rot and decay in thousands of different ways.  The following are 50 facts that show how far America has fallen in this generation, but the truth is that this list could have been far, far longer…

#1 According to a survey that was just conducted, only 36 percent of all Americans can name the three branches of government.

#2 Only 25 percent of all Americans know how long U.S. Senators are elected for (6 years), and only 20 percent of all Americans know how many U.S. senators there are.

Obama calls the government “MY government”

Obama says the government is “MY government.” In light of his track record of unilateral action, does this tyrannical view surprise ANYONE? Why hasn’t the congress impeached and removed this tyrant yet? When will the military honor its oath, and protect the Constitution from this domestic enemy since congress won’t? If neither congress or the military will do their sworn duty, how long will we, the American people tolerate these usurpations of power, and abuses of our liberty before we act to restore the Constitution as the rule of law in America?

---

VIDEO: Obama’s arrogance on display: “MY government”

Written by Allen West on June 7, 2014

Yesterday in an interview with NBC News regarding why he didn’t seek approval for the Berdgahl swap, Obama’s arrogance was in full flower when he said it was a unanimous decision from “MY government.”

Funny how that goes. Lincoln said it was government of the people by the people and for the people that shall not perish from the earth.

So choose this day: Obama’s or Lincoln’s definition of the American Constitutional Republic. It is truly the difference between tyranny and liberty.

(Follow link below to see video of the interview)

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/obamas-arrogance-display-government/
+

---

Veteran waitlist deaths caused by VA may be higher than 1,000

When veterans VOLUNTEERED to sign a blank check with there bodies for their nation to cash, their nation PROMISED to take care of them after making sacrifices few other Americans will ever have to make. Not only are these promises being broken, but CRIMINALLY so. ALL of our public servants swore an oath to protect and defend our Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. Our military and veterans are witnessing the Constitution being destroyed before their eyes, while those who are destroying it are kicking the military. I have asked many times, how many times can you kick a dog before it finally seeks a new master?

“VA has thus far admitted to 23 deaths related to waitlist deaths, but one quick look at VA lawsuits for malpractice paints another picture… They found that over 100 payments per year were made where the veteran died while waiting for care. These are confirmed deaths where VA paid money for its failure. This means over 1,100 veterans died while waiting for care. The actual number is likely much, much higher based on aggregates where veteran families just gave up without suing.”

---

---

Veteran waitlist deaths may be higher than 1,000

VA has thus far admitted to 23 deaths related to waitlist deaths, but one quick look at VA lawsuits for malpractice paints another picture.

Daily News and WST-TV in Atlanta have taken on this task in light of Congress’s inability to get us timely information on the subject. The news agencies filed FOIA requests for malpractice settlements from 2002-2013. (Check out their database: Death Claims Against VA).

They found that over 100 payments per year were made where the veteran died while waiting for care. These are confirmed deaths where VA paid money for its failure. This means over 1,100 veterans died while waiting for care. The actual number is likely much, much higher based on aggregates where veteran families just gave up without suing.