Navigation

Archive | Military

The Pentagon as a Jobs Program, Part 3

By on June 13, 2013 in All Posts, Military, Welfare Programs 0

A couple of months ago, I cited the example of upgraded Abrams tanks being shoved down the Pentagon’s throat by certain members of Congress because tank production = jobs back in the district. I followed that up with some historical background on congressional Pentagon pork-barreling that is discussed in former Reagan budget director David Stockman’s new book. Yesterday, a Wall Street Journal article on congressional resistance to reprioritizing military spending provided a new example:

The battle over the Global Hawk is emblematic of the difficulty the Pentagon faces in trying to reduce its inventory while shifting its focus from the ground war in Afghanistan to emerging threats elsewhere.

The Defense Department has sought to ground the fleet of 18 Global Hawk Block 30 drones, which has been used to conduct surveillance from Afghanistan to Libya. The Air Force says its piloted U-2 planes have better surveillance equipment for the job—and that ending the Global Hawk program can save $2.5 billion over the next four years.

Lawmakers have not only rejected the Pentagon plans, but set aside $443 million to compel the Air Force to buy three more Global Hawks. On Tuesday, the Air Force said it is moving ahead with buying the drones even though it doesn’t want them.

Northrop can rely on bipartisan support. The planes are built in the district represented by Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.), who heads the Armed Services Committee, which will consider a plan to keep Global Hawk running through 2016.

McKeon – who has issues with numbers when it comes to military spending – recently made news when it was discovered by Politico that a lobbying firm run by his brother and nephews is taking on military-related companies as clients. In a statement to Politico, McKeon said that “We are knowledgeable about the [ethics] rules involved and will be devout in our adherence to both the letter and the spirit of those rules.” Well, that’s good to hear. It’s worth noting, however, that when it comes to congressional ethics rules, the fox is guarding the henhouse.

Continue Reading 0

Enemy of the State

By on January 28, 2013 in Activism, Big Brother, Big Government, Congress, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Government, Military, Terrorism, Uncategorized 10

In a published FOIA request, an Airman stationed in the UK was investigated after a mental breakdown caused by conflicting values of US military’s mission and her own political beliefs. She was found to sympathize with Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks. She had admitted to communicating her political ideas with various organizations known for anti-war/anti-military sentiments on Twitter and to a UK journalist. She also attended the Julian Assange Trial. However, her own admission and tweets revealed that she was never asked to release any intelligence to these groups and denied volunteering any intelligence to any journalist or group. The US Airforce Office of Special Investigations filed a complaint report on matters alleging “Communicating with the Enemy.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 104: Communicating with the Enemy states:

“Any person who–
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Who is the enemy in this document? Is it Julian Assange? Wikileaks? Journalists? Bloggers? Social media users? Those opposed to an unconstitutional and failed foreign policy? Anti-war organizations? The leaked document does not directly point to any person or organization but acknowledges who the Airman was in contact with and her activities surrounding her political beliefs. But, constitutionally speaking, who gets to determine the enemy?

The Constitution does not provide any structure to determine an enemy. An enemy could be those the US is at war with. Congress has the power to declare war but there is no framework as to what constitutes a declaration of war. In Federalist Paper number 3, it states, “The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 10

Texas Moves To Nullify NDAA

By on November 18, 2012 in Big Government, Congress, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Government, Liberty, Military, Nullification 61

House Bill 149 (LS: 83R) – Texas Liberty Preservation Act.

Website: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB149

HB149 is a Bill introduced in the Texas Legislative Process on Nov. 12, 2012, by its author (Rep. Lyle Larson) and currently sits at stage 1 (filed). The design of the Bill is to nullify portions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) implemented by the federal law. Specifically, sections 1021 and 1022 are being made invalid and illegal in the State of Texas. You can read the entire bill here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00149I.pdf#navpanes=0

Section (1) (b) (1) of the Bill lays out the constitutional groundwork of the findings that prompted the bill in the first place. It notes the limitations of the federal government under the 10th Amendment. It read:

(b) The legislature finds that:
(1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it under Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution;

Many people think that whatever the federal government creates as law it is the “supreme law of the land” but that is not true. Often the federal government creates laws that are thrown out because they go beyond the powers delegated to the government in the Constitution. Section (1) (b) (3) of the Bill makes this point eloquently clear. It reads: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 61

Some Advice for Military Contractors (and other Government Employees)

By on October 11, 2012 in Military 0

Over at Red State, Eric Erickson has concluded that the law means nothing. This revelation is nothing new for Tenthers, who’ve long understood the futility of relying on the federal government to solve problems created and compounded by the federal government. Specifically, Erickson was writing on the cuts to military spending that sequestration is supposed to bring, should congress fail to arrive at some agreement to bilk the taxpayers a little but more come January, 2013.

This threat of cuts to the Sacred Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex, forever praise its name, has many on the Right foaming at the mouth about the need for fiscal restraint, but in the proper way. I mean, let’s get real, how could anyone seriously suggest any cut to the Pentagon? This subject truly is the third rail. At least we hear rhetoric about reforming social security or Medicare on occasion, but military spending is strictly off limits.

Never mind that many of these now-outraged Republicans voted for sequestration when they agreed to the debt ceiling compromise last fall. And so what if John Boehner said he liked 98% of what was in that bill; we cant be derailing the MICC’s gravy train; not now, not ever. Especially with unemployment being what it is, cutting military spending will surely force tens of thousands of more folks to seek unemployment benefits in the coming months. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Montana lawmaker seeks to create state militia

By on February 10, 2011 in Constitution, Federalism, Government, Military, Originalism, State Sovereignty 0

In a move that will hopefully be copied nationwide over the next few years, Montana lawmakers are considering forming and training an armed volunteer force of “home guards” certified by the governor and not subject to federal oversight. These home guards would be under the direct authority of the county sherriffs and the governor during any state emergency.

According to the Billings Gazette:

Supporters said the bill is not about arming citizens but to provide additional emergency services as some other states do.

A number of states have a state defense force like a “home guard” for responding to emergencies but few states have an armed force like the bill proposes.

As you might expect, the idea of a sovereign state organizing its citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights has met with considerable shock, outrage and hyperbole from the Left. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Thank a Veteran Today by Introducing Them to Oath Keepers!

By on November 11, 2010 in Activism, Big Brother, Big Government, Constitution, Defend the Guard, Military, State Sovereignty 0

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution!

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Our Covenant

By on June 7, 2010 in Foreign Policy, Military 8

Few decisions are more serious than the decision to send our nation’s young men and women off to kill and be killed in the name of our country. Since it is the everyday people whose sons and daughters are sent off to war, our nation’s founding fathers made sure that the power to make war and end war rested in the hands of we the people and with that power it is we the people who bear the responsibility for their fate. A covenant has thus been made.

The founders put provisions into our Constitution to first require a Declaration of War, as voted on by the people’s representatives in Congress, before engaging in war. The Constitution also put the power of the purse into the hands of the people and, since war can only go on for as long as it is funded, it is when we the people decide that a war should end that a “No” vote for continued funding of the war should be cast by our representatives in Congress.

Sadly, too many Americans still don’t understand that it is the U.S. Constitution, to which our soldiers make their oath to support and defend … with their lives if need be … against all enemies foreign and domestic, which provides for we the people to be the “deciders” and not the President or members of the military itself.

In his January 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the American people of the powerful lobbying influence on members of Congress by the Military Industrial Complex. In the 50 years since, the ownership of the armaments industry, the banking industry, big oil, and the corporate media has been consolidated into the hands of a small number of powerful interests. Their influence on members of Congress through election campaign contributions and other favors has in turn increased even more.

IPS, a news agency, reported in April 2008 that 171 members of Congress, both democrat and republican, had personal financial interests in companies profiting from the wars … something the Truman Commission during WW II considered treasonous. How do you think those members of Congress will vote on continued funding of the wars if not seriously confronted by we the people?

We the people have a responsibility to pay attention. We made a covenant. When it becomes evident that there is not enough justification to continue a war, then it is incumbent upon us to actively and strongly call for our representatives in Congress to end the war by refusing the President’s request for additional war funding. For us not to do so, and therefore keep our troops engaged in war any longer than they need to be, is unconscionable.

There were no WMD’s or ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and thus no reason to be there. Osama bin Laden is still not wanted by our FBI for the crimes of 9/11/01. The decision to militarily attack Afghanistan before the end of October 2001 was made on August 2, 2001 (5 weeks before the 9/11 attacks) when the Taliban leaders rejected the U.S. State Department’s ultimatum concerning pipeline construction rights. Yet we the people to this very day allow our representatives in Congress, and the Military Industrial Complex to which they are beholden, to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going.

Our president is currently asking for an additional $33 billion to further fund the wars. The telephone number to reach your member of Congress is (202) 224-3121. Ask for him or her by name. It’s time to end the wars. We have a covenant to keep.

Continue Reading 8

Bypassing Posse Comitatus

By on May 10, 2010 in Law, Military 0

David Franke writes:

An executive order signed by President Clinton and used by President George W. Bush purportedly allows U.S. Special Forces to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act. We have to say “purportedly” because—of course—key parts of the executive order are classified. Scahill asks the natural followup question: “To what extent are U.S. Special Forces permitted to operate on U.S. soil under President Obama?”

An imperial executive unchecked by an impotent Congress. Massive government agencies whose operations in the U.S. are routinely kept secret. A Patriot Act and other Bush Administration garbage that remains in force. All it will take is another 9-11 to impose formal military control domestically, and does anyone seriously think Obama would hesitate?

Continue Reading 0

Who are the dangerous conspiracy theorists?

By on February 16, 2010 in Foreign Policy, Military, Politicians 13

neoconsThe recent Medina debacle on Glenn Beck’s overrated show highlights the obvious hypocrisy of the Beltway Right-wing when it comes to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories that question government action are shunned while ones that endorse all-out war are to be embraced and repeated.

I have one simple question though for anyone free-thinking enough not to immediately follow whatever the voice on the radio tells them. What “conspiracy theorists” are more dangerous and deserve to be shunned by public opinion?

The ones trumpeted by people like Alex Jones whose goal is to have the 9/11 attack investigations to be reopened?

Or the ones feverishly hawked by the likes of Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that call for the American military to begin attacking Iran? The aforementioned talking heads of the mainstream conservative movement are the same voices who were mindless, unquestioning cheerleaders for Bush’s tragic, costly and unconstitutional war with Iraq (with the exception of Palin who was quiet on Iraq until shortly after McCain picked her for his running mate).

These people, who literally have blood on their hands, are now telling us that we should look with disgust on anyone who questions the official account of 9/11?

I don’t know about you but I strongly believe the guy wearing a baseball cap that says “inside job” isn’t a threat to anyone. On the other hand, the self-appointed leaders of the conservative movement, who have already gotten countless people killed and seriously maimed with their “conspiracy theories” while screeching for more war are the dangerous ones.

Continue Reading 13

Defending the Guard

By on January 21, 2010 in Military, State Sovereignty 2

The following is a letter sent to Louisiana State Rep Brett F. Geymann. I encourage you to do the same with your state reps:

On January 11, 2010, Pres. Obama signed an Executive Order, which grants the executive branch of the federal government new, far-reaching powers over the National Guard of each state. You may read that EO here.

As one of Louisiana’s state legislators who has had enough courage in the past to stand up against the federal government by sponsoring legislation revoking the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, I ask you to once again take up the cause of states’ rights and protect Louisiana from this latest unconstitutional action coming from Washington, D. C.

Please introduce a bill reasserting the governor’s power over Louisiana’s National Guard to counteract the EO issued by Pres. Obama. Model legislation is available here:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/defend-the-guard/

I would encourage you to mention in the bill the unconstitutionality of the recent EO.

If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me

Continue Reading 2