Still Think America Isn't an Empire?

There is no end to the expansion of the welfare/warfare state. It reaches into virtually every aspect of American life.

Fort Hood Shooting "Oddities"

The list, compiled by Lori Price of Citizens for Legitimate Government, can be found here.

The Fort Hood Mystery Continues

Michael Gaddy has questions about the "'facts' disseminated by the Army and the state's propaganda wing, sometimes referred to as the mainstream media (MSM)," regarding the Fort Hood shootings:

All too convenient for the Army was the rapid release of negative information related to the alleged shooter. It was said he received a negative evaluation report and that he had caused "red flags" to be raised some months ago concerning emails. Do we know anything this detailed about the "suspects" who were released? The caveat was added that it was unclear as to whether the suspect was the author of those emails. So, months ago, alarms were raised about emails the suspect might have sent, yet, in all those months the Army has been unable to determine who wrote them. Yeah, right. If red flags were in fact raised months ago, why did the Army do nothing? ...

... While it is doubtful we will ever learn the truth of exactly what happened at Fort Hood, we know with a degree of certainty the truth will never be revealed by the Army or the media.

Read the rest here.

The Spin Begins

The Fort Hood tragedy is already being considered a terrorist attack. Walid Phares, Ph.D, writing for Fox News, had this to say:

What happened at Ft. Hood is not about being frustrated by America's foreign policy or exacting revenge for racial slurs. Nor is it about simply being a Muslim-American serving in the military or about being a member of any faith. The murders at Ft. Hood are about the radicalization of individuals by an extremist ideology -- jihadism -- which fuels acts of terror. The main question we should be asking is when did Hasan become radicalized and who indoctrinated him? Everything else will fall in place once we have these answers. Moreover, this would allow us to detect other potential terror acts that may be in the making.

"Who indoctrinated him?" Dr. Phares realizes the shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was trained and employed by the most deadly and efficient killing machine in the world, right?

No matter. For the next few weeks the talking heads will be focusing on the terror angle, especially because of reports like this:

Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" -- an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" -- before opening fire, the base commander said today.

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said officials had not yet confirmed that the suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, made the comment before the rampage Thursday.

In the end, it won't really matter why this psycho shrink went on a shooting spree. That this might have been yet another example of "spontaneous jihad syndrome" is a seed that has already been planted. The intent is to shift the public's attention away from the horrors of war and their effects on those directly involved. Instead, look for this to be used as an excuse to intensify the "war on terror" both at home and abroad.

A Brief Observation Regarding the Fort Hood Shootings

Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a psychiatrist, but he went through basic training just like every other soldier, so he would have been taught to kill. Also, someone in his position would have been expected to encourage killing by counseling other soldiers in a way that would not have interfered with that aspect of their jobs.

So what puzzles me most about this tragedy is that people would be so shocked to see a member of the military doing exactly what he had been trained to do. Perhaps it's because this particular act of violence was committed against Americans here in the U.S. and not against foreign strangers in some backwards country in the Middle East.

"A Global Force for Good"?

The U.S. Navy unveils its new slogan -- and no longer tries to conceal its true mission:

Anyone still want to argue that the U.S. is not imperialistic?

A Fair and Balanced Approach to the Release of Torture Photos

My latest on Examiner.com.

Real Soldiers Know When to Disobey Orders

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."



Oath-Keepers' Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
   
   
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
   
   
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.
   
   
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.
   
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
   
   
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
   
   
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
   
   
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.
   
   
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
   
   
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Read the full Declaration here.

Posse Comiwhatus?

About those U.S. troops in Alabama being deployed in response to a domestic crime...

The Army is investigating.

U.S. Troops Deployed in Alabama

The soldiers pictured here are not in Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other war-torn third world country. They were dispatched from the Army base at Ft. Rucker to patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, following Michael McLendon's murderous shooting spree on March 10.

If the military insists on ignoring the Posse Comitatus Act, we can expect scenes like this to be much more common.

How Do We End Slavery in America?

According to Ron Paul, abolishing the Selective Service would be a good start.

Conscription = Slavery

Beware those who wish to draft you or your children to help fight the "war on terror." Writes William Grigg:

Conscription is never necessary to inspire men to defend their homes and families, and it is never used for that purpose. It is carried out for the sole purpose of compelling men to kill and die on behalf of the State and the degenerate clique running it.

He concludes:

No scimitar-wielding Mohammedan has materialized on my doorstep to demand that I surrender my children as a "blood tax" demanded by the state. I know what variety of greeting I would give such a personage were he to appear. The same is true for any functionary of any government who would presume to claim my children as the property of the official gang that employs him.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

This AFP story appeared, ironically, in the Straits Times:

Sixteen years after Bill Clinton tried to end restrictions on gays in the military, the U.S. armed forces under Barack Obama may be forced to give homosexuals the same welcome as non-gays.

Under President Clinton, the policy that once saw homosexuals discharged from US military service evolved to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing gays to remain in the military so long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation.

Mr. Obama has pledged to overhaul current law.

"The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited," reads an entry on the president-elect's transition website.

Santa Gets Help from the Air Force

Oh, give me a break:

Passé Comitatus Act

The Washington Post is reporting that the Pentagon plans to deploy up to 20,000 troops here within our own borders in an effort to "train" state and local officials to better respond to a nuclear attack or other catastrophe:

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted "a fundamental change in military culture," he said.

The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.

What would be next? Quartering troops in our homes? You know, as long as we patriotic Americans could still have our hot dogs and fireworks on the Fourth of July, I'm sure most of us would probably be OK with that.

Which Veterans Should Be Honored?

Today is set aside to honor those who have served and are serving in our nation's military. But does this mean that we should honor all veterans?

In every conflict throughout our nation's history we have been told to "support the troops," and the veterans of each of those conflicts are praised as heroes. Are we to believe that every soldier in every operation has contributed to our freedom? What about those who take part in wars that have absolutely nothing to do with defending these United States? For example, I have yet to hear it argued that those who were sent to bomb Bosnian Serbs in the mid-1990s were safeguarding the safety and freedom of Americans.

So, I ask again, in all seriousness: Should we honor all veterans, or just those who have actually defended our freedom? Someone please help me out here. I really want to know.

America, Prepare to Be Invaded...

...by your very own troops. From the Army Times:

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

The article goes on to say that these soldiers "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

Great. When catastrophe strikes, and you think things couldn't get any worse, along comes the federal government.

1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier could hardly contain his excitement. He said, "I don't know what America's overall plan is -- I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they're called. It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home." Cloutier strikes me as the kind of uber-patriot who has that ridiculous Lee Greenwood song as a running soundtrack in his head.

Chuck Baldwin, presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, thinks deploying U.S. troops at home is a bad idea. He writes:

One of America's most sacred principles has always been that the U.S. military was never to be used for domestic law enforcement. The fear of standing armies ran very deep in the hearts and minds of America's founders. The tyranny and misery inflicted upon the colonies by British troops weighed heavily upon those who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In their minds, the American people would never again be subjected to the heavy weight of army boots. Furthermore, they insisted that America would have a civilian -- not military -- government.

I don't know about you, but the move to militarize and nationalize law enforcement in this country makes me a little uncomfortable.

Justice Goes to the Dogs

Well, what did I tell you? The puppy-tossing Marines seem to be getting more press coverage than the "Heroes" of Haditha.

According to the AP, the Marine Corps is expelling Lance Cpl. David Motari and disciplining Sgt. Crismarvin Banez Encarnacion. Both men have also received unspecified "non-judicial" punishment.

UPDATE:
This story garnered some interesting responses from our neocon friends at FreeRepublic.com. Some were glad to see disciplinary action taken, but many sought to excuse the behavior. One member said, "A cruel thing indeed. But men do cruel things in war zones." Another said, "I say cut them some slack, no puppy is worth a career, these were men willing to do things that 299 Million Americans have not and WILL not do." This was the most "macho" of the bunch. He later went on to say, "I don't give one whit what 'animal lovers' think about it. As far as what they did, IMO the only thing that bugs me the slightest is that they put it on YouTube. Stomp the puppies heads (sic) in for all I care, in truth wild mongrel dogs are vermin."

Some saw the need for at least a slap on the wrist: "While some punishment is merited, it should certainly not end his career. Next, we'll find that shooting a rodent will get you kicked out."

Some kind of got it: "What they did to this puppy is disturbing, but there are many abjectly repulsive acts that soldiers in war are forced to do, and get medals for doing."

Still others just didn't seem to have a clue: "The Marine Corps isn't about being cruel. It's about defending our country and showing the willingness to close and destroy our enemies in a disciplined manner. That's what set Marines apart, it's an 'honor' thing. It's not a 'killing for giggles like little punks' thing." Another chimed in, "The helpless little puppy was not the enemy, and we have no use for people in our armed forces who have that much difficulty differentiating between enemies and non-enemies."

As you might have guessed, not one word about Haditha in the entire thread. It just reinforces my original assertion that in our twisted American worldview, a cute puppy is worth more than 10 or even 10,000 Iraqis.

Courage Under Fire

This is the story of a soldier by the name of Matthis Chiroux:

"I was from a poor, white family from the south, and I did badly in school," the now 24-year-old told AFP.

"I was 'filet mignon' for recruiters. They started phoning me when I was in 10th grade," or around 16 years old, he added.

Chiroux joined the US army straight out of high school nearly six years ago, and worked his way up from private to sergeant.

He served in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines and was due to be deployed next month in Iraq.

On Thursday, he refused to go, saying he considers Iraq an illegal war.

"I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq," Chiroux said in the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington.

"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation. ... I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation," he said, as a dozen veterans of the five-year-old Iraq war looked on.

Despite his pledge to remain in the country and face "whatever charges the army levels at me," Chiroux has been branded a coward by the usual suspects. They know that if more and more soldiers decide to honor their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," the fewer there will be to ship off to kill and die in illegal wars.

But what's most noteworthy about Chiroux is his view of a soldier's personal responsibility in the matter: "I cannot deploy to Iraq, carry a weapon and not be part of the problem." Now, I realize that there are soldiers in Iraq who honestly believe they are fighting for their country and keeping their loved ones safe at home. Others may disagree with the war, but take the "I'm only doing my job" position to justify their participation. My hope is that more members of the military will decide that their first allegiance as soldiers is to the Constitution, not the whim of a warmongering commander in chief, and make the decision not to participate.

Still, Americans have this romantic image of fighting men (and now women) in uniform. Those who take up arms for the government are viewed as courageous, and those who lose their lives in the process are memorialized for making the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. Courage, however, is defined not by killing and dying, but by doing what's right regardless of the consequences.

We're Looking for a Few Good Men

Well, keep looking:

(CNN) - The military is investigating a "shocking and deplorable" YouTube video that seems to show a Marine throwing a puppy off a rocky cliff.

The black-and-white puppy makes a yelping sound as it flies through the air.

"That's mean, that was mean," one companion says off-camera, addressing the alleged puppy thrower by his last name. The fate of the animal is not known.

The Marine is identified on the video and in other Internet postings as a lance corporal stationed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe.

I saw the video in question and thought it looked staged. It's very likely the marines stumbled across a dead puppy and thought it would be funny to make a video of one of them tossing it over a cliff. Real or not, it's still pretty sick.

But what's even more disturbing is the fact that everyone seems to be reacting to this story as if it's the most shocking thing they've seen since the war began. In our twisted American worldview, a cute puppy is worth more than 10 or even 10,000 Iraqis. You can bet this fiasco will see more press coverage than the Haditha massacre.