Tuesday, April 25, 2017

How Desert Storm Destroyed The Military.

The US military that won Desert Storm or Gulf War I in 1991 was a spectacular military, a gargantuan industrial age military with high tech weaponry and well trained personnel, that when called upon, achieved victory with the speed of Patton and the elan of Teddy Roosevelt.

Overlooking the vast eight mile carnage on the Highway of Death in Kuwait, destruction that was caused by a US Air Force and Navy that bore almost no resemblance to the two services now, a sergeant in the 7th US Cavalry remarked, “America sure got its money’s worth from those Joes.”
In 44 days, the largest military force assembled by the US and its allies since Normandy destroyed the world’s fourth largest army in a brilliantly led, fabulously executed air and ground war in the sands of the Middle East.

The ghosts of Vietnam were vanquished by men who had experienced the horrors and strategic errors of that war and who inculcated those lessons to the personnel they led.
Both General Colin Powell and the late General Norman Schwarzkopf had both served multiple tours in Vietnam and their experiences there made them highly skeptical of the press and its intentions.

Therefore, no reporters were embedded with combat units during the war.
The world was given a Nintendo video game, sanitized version of a war; while albeit short, had many elements of the nastiness of wars past, but appeared to be nothing more than a high tech cake walk.

Because there were no journalists in the field, the world never saw H.R McMaster, the President’s National Security Adviser, who was then a captain in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, fighting the Tawakalna Division of the Republican Guard at a now famous grid line dubbed the 73 Easting.
On McMaster’s left flank, the scouts from the 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry were also battling the Tawakalna and the ghosts of the Little Big Horn, at a nameless speck of desert landscape known as Phase Line Bullet.

Later that night, grunts and tankers from the 1st Infantry Division, the Big Red One, hit the Guard at Objective Norfolk and before the night was over, found themselves engaged in close quarters fighting with fanatical Guardsmen in a place most of them want to forget, but can’t. Two days before, the Big Red One had spent the opening hours of the war burying Iraqis in the trenches alive with bulldozers.
On G Day +3, the US 1st Armored Division hammered the Iraqi Al-Medina Division of the Republican Guard at a place now known as Medina Ridge. The Battle of Medina Ridge was to date the largest tank battle since Kursk in 1943.

Yet, the world saw none of those battles being fought as they saw no Marines storming through Kuwait. There were no journalists; hence no video, no film, no photos; nothing to show the world except a few shots of B Roll of the Iraqi Army surrendering to Marines on the border. To the American public, the Iraqis were surrendering en masse, when in actuality the Republican Guard was going down with the ship. For example, the 10,000 man Tawakalna Division was virtually annihilated, including the division commander who died in an artillery barrage on the night of February 26, 1991.
While General Schwarkopf’s power point presentations enlightened the world, the soldiers and Marines found themselves in a Dante’s Inferno, with smoldering vehicles, dead Iraqi soldiers strewn over tank turrets in a man-made darkness of oil fires that smothered any sunlight and the vast remnants of an army, which littered the battlefield: rifles, helmets, sundry equipment and arms and legs that were picked at by packs of roving wild dogs.

War is hell…but the American public never knew.
The day Desert Storm ended, the death of the US military commenced.

The Pentagon, basking in glory and bowing to pressure from the public and crackpot feminists like Patricia Schroeder, started drinking the Kool Aid and they’ve never stopped. The war was a video game, a clean, quick rout. Modern war was now sanitized, where the bad guys would die at stand-off ranges of a mile or two and explode in little black and white pixels on Pentagon TV screens. In fact, war was now so quick and so easy that women should be allowed to serve in the combat arms and Special Forces.
Our victory in Desert Storm became the catalyst for every left wing wacko to hack at the military with a meat cleaver.

Since, 1991, the US military has been slowly coming apart at the seams. Stress cards, open homosexuality, transgenders on active duty, sensitivity training, pregnancy simulators for male troopers, lactation stations in the field, babies born on US ships of war, female graduates of Ranger School, including a 37 year old mother (it’s funny how the women looked so well fed), women in the SEALs, women in Marine infantry units and females in the field artillery (even though most cannot carry a 155mm round) are just some of the insanity that has taken place in the last 26 years, but which snowballed into hell under the Obama administration.
A social revolution engulfed the military, starting with Tailhook and continuing to this day. Warriors were forced out and feather merchants and PC flag bearers were promoted. Girl power was in and masculinity was out. The warrior culture was buried and a new culture was reborn that resembles corporate America, not the US military of yesteryear.

No, General Kennedy, it’s not your father’s army and that’s a problem, a big, festering problem.
And, now, with the world in flames, with ISIS blowing up Europe, with Putin pumping weights in the Artic while he watches his BMP’s on skis roll by, with Kim Jong-Loon on the loose with a toy chest of nukes and missiles and with Iran figuring out that Trump ain’t Barney Fife, the US military needs to be rougher and tougher and more ready for a fight than ever.

And, we ain’t. And, that’s the fact, Jack.
Many are waiting for Mad Dog Mattis to stick a pike in the heart of the military’s social engineering forever.

We are still waiting…
Perhaps, Secretary Mattis is so busy dealing with the thugs on the planet, that he has forgotten that the armed forces that will be engaging the thugs is still in trouble.

Secretary Mattis must once and for all shut down the feminist fantasy of women in the combat arms.  There are thousands of jobs for women in the military where they can serve honorably and be promoted, without, in Mattis’ own words, ‘setting themselves up for failure in combat.’
Mattis also needs to get rid of the perfumed princes, and the feckless duds who have infested the senior ranks of the armed forces. I would rather have a sergeant with guts running a division than a two star coward who is more worried about his pension and future job on cable news than the mission and the troops.

The US military is still being led by people who believe that the military is nothing different than working for Google, except that the military has uniforms and weapons.  When you eschew the glorious traditions of the military and combine that with ludicrous social engineering, you are setting yourself up for massive failure.
While the US military interpreted the results of Desert Storm incorrectly, the real lessons from that conflict are crystal clear. The US military functioned well in an environment that focused on the mission, not on political correctness, LGBT rights, day care centers on submarines and breastfeeding Rangers.

With our enemies stacking up against us, time is running out to fix the problems which were initially caused by a victory 26 years ago, in a war that has largely been forgotten.
by Ray Starmann | April 21, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thank you, Ralph H.

Starmann, with credibility I do not have, puts into perspective issues I've asked questions about since Desert Storm, some I've left to you, Dan and others for expert commentary. In large part because Desert Storm was so successful (to my eyes anyway) I was, soon on, disgusted with both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. You know my concern that goes so far as to ask "can we win another major conflict?" And, I know your answer. I've talked with a former CENTCOM Commander for his opinion of the two wars and his answer was, "the worst managed wars in history." OK, I don't think Gen. Tony Zinni would object if he knew I was repeating his words.

Women in combat is another issue. I get worse than anger from more than a few women when they know I don't support putting women in combat. Is it possible that Gen. Mattis and Pres. Trump can stop the madness in our military, including stopping the damn fool social re-engineering!   Can they overcome the disastrous effects of the Obama years and of congressional neglect??  Still have more questions than answers.

Perhaps you and others here can help me reconcile our needs that the ignorant and feckless "leaders" seem neither to understand nor want to. Sorry, my hot button got ignited. I don't have the military creds to trust my own opinions,  but it seems that today even top senior officers are more interested in politics than in fighting to win.

Thanks,

Joe M.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Facebook's Grip On Modern Culture


Facebook’s grip on modern culture has transformed into something much bigger than mere words on the personal pages of the world’s technologically savvy denizens.

The enormity of the Facebook experiment comes with it a responsibility to represent the entirety of its user base – a responsibility that Facebook has concisely shirked in favor of a severe liberal slant.  CEO Mark Zuckerberg has taken the false flag information attack aimed at “fake news” and co-opted the moniker to censor and stifle those with whom his personal politics disagree.
This would be nothing of note were Zuckerberg in charge of a small media outlet with a staff of content creators, working feverishly to spin the world news to fit into this view.  Instead, the Facebook CEO is at the helm of one of the world’s most diverse and complex populations and publishing outlets, and he is simply censoring those with whom he disagrees.

Now, given the rise of conservatism across the globe, Facebook is turning their fascist-tendencies up to eleven in an effort to maintain the liberal status quo.  In France, where an extremely important election is looming, Zuckerberg has just fired a salvo of shots aimed directly at right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen.
“Facebook says it has targeted 30,000 fake accounts linked to France ahead of the country’s presidential election, as part of a worldwide effort against misinformation.

“The company said Thursday it’s trying to ‘reduce the spread of material generated through inauthentic activity, including spam, misinformation, or other deceptive content that is often shared by creators of fake accounts.’
“It said its efforts ‘enabled us to take action’ against the French accounts and that it is removing sites with the highest traffic.”

We must remember that, although these statements from Facebook appear benign and benevolent on their face, the word “fake” is doublespeak for “conservative” in the Kingdom of Zuckerberg.  What is happening in France is simply a refusal by the world’s most prevalent publisher of opinion to allow any conservative viewpoints to be heard in hopes of dashing the French people’s hopes of electing the enigmatic Le Pen to office.

This is ironically a case of pure and simple fascism:  A term used ad nauseam by the mainstream media’s figureheads to attempt to vilify the right wing movement that is sweeping our globe.

 

Friday, April 7, 2017

Questions For Susan Rice


By David Harsanyi
April 07 2017
 

 
The House Intelligence Committee reportedly wants former national security adviser Susan Rice to testify in the probe of alleged Russian election interference, which now includes evidence that Obama officials may have improperly used intelligence gathered on President Trump's transition team.
We've been incessantly assured there's nothing to this story. Perhaps. This week, though, Rice felt the need to seek out a friendly face in NBC's Andrea Mitchell — although there were plenty to choose from — to tell us that she never improperly unmasked any Trump transition officials whose conversations were caught on surveillance.
Now, there are a number of worthy follow-ups that Mitchell forgot to ask. But since Rice says nothing unethical transpired, there should be no problem in her answering those queries under oath.
For instance: Why did you lie to PBS about having no knowledge of the unmasking of Trump officials or family?
On the heels of the allegations made by Rep. Devin Nunes, Rice was asked whether the Obama administration had unmasked Trump transition members swept up in surveillance of other individuals. "I know nothing about this," she claimed at the time. "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today." She didn't say "so much of this is routine, I'm unsure" or "it would be completely inappropriate for me to talk about intelligence reports." She said, "I know nothing" and "I was surprised."
After retweeting an ally who claimed Rice's words were distorted, Rice wrote, "I said I did not know what reports Nunes was referring to when he spoke to the press."
The transcript says otherwise. Judy Woodruff correctly and broadly laid out the situation, and then asked a straightforward question. She said: "We've been following a disclosure by ... Devin Nunes that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition after President Trump had been elected, he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?"
Rice replied, "I know nothing about this."
What are the chances that a national security adviser forgot she's asked for intelligence reports on members of the incoming administration? This is the same woman who went on national television and repeatedly lied that the Islamic terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi were a "spontaneous reaction" to a "hateful and offensive video."
So, Ambassador Rice, did you request that the identities of Trump campaign officials, transition team members, or family members be unmasked?
Is it normal for high-level officials to request for names of political players to be unmasked in raw intelligence?
Ben Rhodes, one of the most frazzled former Obama officials on social media these days, tweeted yesterday, "Bullying people into covering routine work of any senior nat sec official as news is clear effort to distract from Qs about Trump and Russia."
Is it really the "routine work" of top national security officials to proactively collect information on incoming officials of the opposition political party? Sounds like a bad idea. Is this something Rhodes endorses for Trump officials as well? Is it OK to share this information with chief White House strategist Steve Bannon?
Because Bloomberg's Eli Lake reported this week that Rice allegedly "requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign." It was not something that was plopped on her desk by some functionary — incidentally.
Which individual in government initially provided you with the raw intelligence reports containing the masked Trump team identities?
Which Trump team members did you specifically ask to be unmasked? And why did you ask for their identities to be unmasked?
In what way did unmasking these people have foreign intelligence value?
In what way was this done to protect the American people?
If Nunes is telling the truth — and despite a widespread effort to make him look like a liar, he's been right so far — then this incidental collection had nothing to do with Russian collusion charges. Why has the media shown such little curiosity about the subject manner of the collection?
Yes, reporters, we know that "unmasking" is legal. So is meeting with a Russian ambassador during a campaign. And no, it does not vindicate Trump's tweet. Stressing the legality of the unmasking is a way to distract from the real questions: Did Rice abuse her power? Who did she share it with? Why? Did those people then leak the information for political purposes? That is illegal.
Rice says she gave "nothing to nobody."
Ambassador Rice, do you swear under oath that you have never leaked any classified information to anyone in the media ever?
Did you share the information you garnered about the Trump transition team with anybody, whether inside or outside the federal government?
Did anybody ask you to collect the unmasked information or to disseminate it?
After all, erstwhile civil libertarians have been warning about the potential for this sort of abuse for many years. Now, this isn't exactly how they imagined it unfolding, of course, but it doesn't make the charges any less serious.

Friday, March 31, 2017

Impressions of Judge Gorsuch



 
This last week offered conservatives and libertarians a delightful spectacle in Judge Neil Gorsuch's testimony during Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on his nomination to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Gorsuch performed so brilliantly, and his antagonist Judiciary Committee liberals performed so ineptly, that his confirmation now appears all but certain. 
In that vein, this week offered additional positive news in the form of a new Rasmussen Reports survey showing that voters believe that any opposition to Gorsuch's nomination derives from pure partisanship rather than any honest difference in judicial philosophy.  Respondents also believe that Gorsuch deserves confirmation more than they did any of Obama's nominees, and are confident that he will indeed be confirmed. 
Accordingly, with Gorsuch's confirmation a near certainty, we could relax and enjoy the intellectual, temperamental and jurisprudential clinic that Gorsuch put on. 
One particularly encouraging point arrived when Gorsuch suggested that he may maintain an even more expansive view of the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms than Scalia, who authored the majority opinion in the seminal D.C. v. Heller decision.  It occurred during the second day of testimony, when liberal Senator Diane Feinstein attempted to corner him with the following question: 
In D.C. v. Heller, the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia recognized that, and I'm quoting, 'Of course the Second Amendment was not unlimited,' end quote.  Justice Scalia wrote, 'For example, laws restricting access to guns by the mentally ill or laws forbidding gun possession in schools were consistent with the limited nature of the Second Amendment.'  Justice Scalia also wrote that, quote, 'Weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned without infringing on the Second Amendment.'  Do you agree with that statement that under the Second Amendment weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned? 
Senator Feinstein was obviously going out of her way to cherry-pick words from Scalia's opinion that were unfortunate at the time and unnecessary to the Heller holding itself.  But Gorsuch stood his ground: 
Senator, Heller makes clear the standard that we judges are supposed to apply.  The question is whether it is a gun in common use for self-defense.  And that may be subject to reasonable regulation.  That's the test as I understand it.  There is lots of ongoing litigation about which weapons qualify under those standards, and I can't prejudge that litigation. 
Senator Feinstein persisted, attempting to corner Gorsuch one more time using the even more unfortunate and unnecessary words of otherwise conservative Judge Harvey Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: 
All right.  Fair enough.  Let me give you another one.  The Fourth Circuit, Judge Harvey Wilkinson authored a separate concurrence in the Fourth Circuit case Kobe v. Hogan.  Here is what he said.  'No one really knows what the right answer is with respect to regulation of firearms.  I am unable to draw from the profound ambiguities of the Second Amendment an invitation to the courts ... arrogate to themselves decisions that have been historically assigned to other more democratic actors.  Disenfranchising the American people on this life-and-death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps.  It is their community, not ours.  It is their safety, not ours.  It is their lives, not ours.'  Do you agree with Judge Wilkinson that the Second Amendment is ambiguous?  Should the ambiguity be decided by the Court or legislatures? 
But once again Gorsuch, a man noted for his cordial demeanor, stood his ground.  In fact, he replied in a manner implicitly critical of Judge Wilkinson in rejecting his willingness to defer to legislative efforts to narrow Second Amendment rights in the wake of Heller
But the Supreme Court of the United States isn't final because it is infallible, as Justice Jackson reminds us.  It is infallible because it is final.  And Judge Wilkinson had his view, and the Supreme Court has spoken.  And Heller is the law of the land and Justice - Judge - Wilkinson may disagree with it and I understand that.  And he may.  But he will follow the law no less than any other judge in America.  I am confident of that.  He's a very fine judge who takes his oath seriously. 
That exchange offered an encouraging sign to conservatives, libertarians and anyone who values the individual right to keep and bear arms.  By notably refusing to accept Justice Scalia's words wholesale, he signaled that if ruling on a future Second Amendment case, he might consider them dicta and not central to Heller's precedent. 
Gorsuch has justifiably been celebrated as someone as close to the "perfect nominee" as could be imagined to conservatives and libertarians.  The views on Second Amendment rights that he expressed only strengthened that optimism. 
(Courtesy of CFIF)
 

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Obama as EX-POTUS

By Daniel Greenfield,

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

After Trump secured the nomination, Obama's people filed a wiretapping request. As he was on the verge of winning, they did it again. After he won, they are doing everything they can to bring him down.

It was always going to come down to this.

One is the elected President of the United States. The other is the Anti-President who commands a vast network that encompasses the organizers of OFA, the official infrastructure of the DNC and Obama Anonymous, a shadow government of loyalists embedded in key positions across the government.

A few weeks after the election, I warned that Obama was planning to run the country from outside the White House. And that the "Obama Anonymous" network of staffers embedded in the government was the real threat. Since then Obama's Kalorama mansion has become a shadow White House. And the Obama Anonymous network is doing everything it can to bring down an elected government.

Valerie Jarrett has moved into the shadow White House to plot operations against Trump. Meanwhile Tom Perez has given him control of the corpse of the DNC after fending off a Sandernista bid from Keith Ellison. Obama had hollowed out the Democrat Party by diverting money to his own Organizing for America. Then Hillary Clinton had cannibalized it for her presidential bid through Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile. Now Obama owns the activist, OFA, and organizational, DNC, infrastructure.

But that's just half the picture.

Obama controls the opposition. He will have a great deal of power to choose future members of Congress and the 2020 candidate. But he could have done much of that from Chicago or New York. The reason he didn't decide to move on from D.C. is that the nation's capital contains the infrastructure of the national government. He doesn't just want to run the Democrats. He wants to run America.

The other half of the picture is the Obama Deep State. This network of political appointees, bureaucrats and personnel scattered across numerous government agencies is known only as Obama Anonymous.

Obama Inc. had targeted Trump from the very beginning when it was clear he would be the nominee.

Trump had locked down the GOP nomination in May. Next month there was a FISA request targeting him. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denied the request, and it is still unknown whether the request targeted Trump, or only his associates, but it's silly to pretend that the submission of such a request a month after he became the presumptive GOP nominee was apolitical.

The second, narrower, FISA request came through in October.  This one was approved. The reason for getting a FISA request in October was even more obvious than June. October is the crucial month in presidential elections. It's the month of the "October Surprise" when the worst hit pieces based on the keenest opposition research is unleashed. Obama's opposition research on Trump involved eavesdropping on a server in Trump Tower. Nixon would have been very jealous.

After the election, Obama Inc. began to spread out its bets. Some of his people migrated into his network of political organizations. Others remained embedded in the government. While the former would organize the opposition, the latter would sabotage, undermine and try to bring down Trump.

An unprecedented campaign for full spectrum dominance was being waged in domestic politics.

Political opposition wasn't a new phenomenon; even if a past president centralizing control of the organizational and activist arms of his party to wage war on his successor was unprecedented. But weaponizing unelected government officials to wage war on an elected government was a coup.

Obama Anonymous conducted its coup in layers. The first layer partnered congressional Democrats with OA personnel to retain control of as much of the government as possible by the Obama Deep State. They did it by blocking Trump's nominees with endless hearings and protests. The second layer partnered congressional Democrats with the deeper layer of Obama operatives embedded in law enforcement and intelligence agencies who were continuing the Obama investigations of Trump. 

This second layer sought to use the investigation to force out Trump people who threatened their control over national security, law enforcement and intelligence. It is no coincidence that their targets, Flynn and Sessions, were in that arena. Or that their views on Islamic terror and immigration are outside the consensus making them easy targets for Obama Anonymous and its darker allies.

These darker allies predate Obama. The tactics being deployed against Trump were last used by them in a previous coup during President Bush's second term. The targets back then had included Bush officials, an Iran skeptic, pro-Israel activists and a Democrat congresswoman. The tactics, eavesdropping, leaks, false investigations, dubious charges and smear campaigns against officials, were exactly the same.

Anyone who remembers the cases of Larry Franklin, Jane Harman and some others will recognize them. Before that they were used to protect the CIA underestimates of Soviet capabilities that were broken through by Rumsfeld's Halloween Massacre and Team B which helped clear the way for Reagan's defeat of the Soviet Union.

Under Bush, the Deep State was fighting against any effort to stop Iran's nuclear program. It did so by eliminating and silencing opposition within the national security establishment and Congress through investigations of supposed foreign agents. That left the field clear for it to force a false National Intelligence Estimate on President Bush which claimed that Iran had halted its nuclear program.

Obama broke out the same tactics when he went after Iran Deal opponents. Once again members of Congress were spied on and the results were leaked to friendly media outlets. Before the wiretapping of Trump's people, the NSA was passing along conversations of Iran Deal opponents to the White House which were used to coordinate strategy in defense of the illegal arrangement with Islamic terrorists.

The same wall between government and factional political agendas that Nixon's "White House Plumbers" had broken through on the way to Watergate had been torn down. NSA eavesdropping was just another way to win domestic political battles. All it took was accusing the other side of treason.

And worse was to come.

During the Iran Deal battle, the NSA was supposedly filtering the eavesdropped data it passed along.

In its last days, Obama Inc. made it easier to pass along unfiltered personal information to the other agencies where Obama loyalists were working on their investigation targeting Trump. The NSA pipeline now makes it possible for the shadow White House to still gain intelligence on its domestic enemies.

And the target of the shadow White House is the President of the United States.

There is now a President and an Anti-President. A government and a shadow government. The anti-President controls more of the government through his shadow government than the real President.

The Obama network is an illegal shadow government. Even its "light side" as an opposition group is very legally dubious. Its "shadow side" is not only illegal, but a criminal attack on our democracy.

When he was in power, Obama hacked reporters like FOX News' James Rosen and CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson. He eavesdropped on members of Congress opposed to the Iran Deal. Two men who made movies he disliked ended up in jail. But what he is doing now is even more deeply disturbing.

Obama no longer legally holds power. His Deep State network is attempting to overturn the results of a presidential election using government employees whose allegiance is to a shadow White House. Tactics that were illegal when he was in office are no longer just unconstitutional, they are treasonous.

Obama Inc. has become a state within a state. It is a compartmentalized network of organizations, inside and outside the government, that claim that they are doing nothing illegal as individual groups because they are technically following the rules within each compartment, but the sheer scope of the illegality lies in the covert coordination between these "revolutionary cells" infecting our country.

It is a criminal conspiracy of unprecedented scope. Above all else, it is the most direct attack yet on a country in which governments are elected by the people, not by powerful forces within the government.

"We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain," President Lincoln declared at Gettysburg.  "That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Obama's shadow government is not just a war on President Trump. It is a war on that government of the people, by the people and for the people. If he succeeds, then at his touch, it will perish from the earth.

Obama's third term has begun. Our Republic is in danger.