Archive for the ‘Military’ Category

WEST POINT GRADUATE DISCHARGED

Friday, June 22nd, 2018

 

West Point grad who posed with ‘Communism will win’ in cap discharged

Share

VIDEO MEMORIAL DAY TRIBUTE FOR THE FALLEN

Monday, May 28th, 2018

 

VIDEO –  MEMORIAL DAY TRIBUTE FROM HILLSDALE COLLEGE
Share

AMERICA CAN’T AFFORD TO CEDE THE SEAS

Wednesday, May 16th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

America Can’t Afford to Cede the Seas

Does the U.S. want to continue as a great power? China’s navy is set to surpass our fleet by 2030.

The escalating territorial disputes in the Pacific between China and America’s allies create an ever-more-urgent need for U.S. sea power. But even as China rapidly expands and modernizes its navy, the Trump administration has not proposed enough funds to maintain America’s maritime advantage. Beginning with the coming 2019 federal budget, the president and Congress must commit to funding a full, modern fleet—or risk ceding essential U.S. and allied interests.

American sea power has secured the Pacific since the end of World War II, assuring safe and open trade, while defusing conflict throughout the region. Maintaining a powerful navy for these ends is hardly an American innovation: No great state or empire has ever retained its status without pre-eminent sea power. The histories of Athens, Venice, Spain, Holland and England show that losing control of the oceans leads ineluctably to losing great-power status.

The rapid growth and improvement of China’s naval forces is the major challenge to American sea dominance today, and likely for the foreseeable future. Retired Capt. James Fanell, former director of intelligence for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated in 2015 that China’s combat fleet will reach 415 ships in 2030. Beijing is particularly focused on adding submarines, amphibious vessels and small surface combatants. The buildup demonstrates China’s clear intention to dominate in coastal regions and amphibious operations—domains in which the U.S. has pre-eminence today.

As Adm. Phil Davidson, nominated to lead the U.S. Pacific Command, told the Senate in April: China “is no longer a rising power but an arrived great power and peer competitor.” He added that “China has undergone a rapid military modernization over the last three decades and is approaching parity in a number of critical areas; there is no guarantee that the United States would win a future conflict with China.”

The White House has proposed expanding the U.S. Navy to 355 ships, but its plan is too slow and underfunded. The full fleet would not be complete until 2050 at the earliest. Although President Trump proposes to dedicate $20 billion for new ship construction in 2019, and about the same in constant dollars in each of the next five years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the project requires an additional $6.6 billion a year over the next 30 years. Without increased funding, the fleet will be smaller in three decades than it is today, and China’s navy could surpass it by 2030.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO: MARK LEVIN INTERVIEWS DR. VINCENT PRY, EMP TASK FORCE DIRECTOR

Tuesday, April 24th, 2018

 

VIDEO

It is chilling to listen to   Dr. Peter Vincent Pry,  Executive Director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland. Security, a Congressional Advisory Board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse (EMP), cyber attack, mass destruction terrorism and other …    We are so unprepared !   Thanks to Louis Stannard for sharing this video with us.   Nancy  

Mark Levin Interviews Peter Pry, EMP Task Force Director Part 1

Subscribe to my channel, click the “Like” button and watch new video!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb_Ft3kXXsc&app=desktop

 

 

Share

THE OUTRAGEOUS SPENDING BILL

Sunday, March 25th, 2018

 

  Thanks to Anthony Bruno for sharing this analysis of the outrageous and obscene omnibus bill that President Trump just signed.  Particularly offensive is  the tax payers’ money that is going to other countries.  It is shameful that in order to fund our military, all sorts of pork barrel spending was included in this bill. Congress is irresponsible with the money that is entrusted to them from the American taxpayer.  We need to replace these big spenders with true fiscal conservatives.
 Be sure to scroll down to Rush Limbaugh’s transcript of today’s program regarding this bill.     Nancy
Those of us that understand the dis-ingenuousness of politicians who promise but never
deliver are seeing once again the Congress has passed a six month budget that will cost us
more than $1 trillion, ‘funded’ with debt and will not address important issues that will
now have to wait until 2020 when another budget will be due!
Three key campaign issues of President Trump, defunding of Planned Parenthood and
sanctuary cities, and building the wall on the Southern border are not included in this
budget to the satisfaction of Democrats and half of Republicans than couldn’t care
less about the president’s promise to the people that elected him.
Even one issue Democrats say are deeply concerned about, ‘Dreamers’, DACA children
are also not protected, even though it really doesn’t hurt their cause as until legislation
is written they’re here to stay and the “chain’ of relatives also will not be deported.
This was enough to warrant a presidential veto which did not occur, but, will it be
enough to give Democrats a Congressional majority in November?
What else is in this legislative concoction? The following are requests from the Trump
Administration which were rejected.
1. No increased in the number of ICE ( Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
2. Detention centers for apprehended illegals are not being increased.
3. Sanctuary cities will continue to be funded.
4. Only 33 miles of new fencing on the Texas border will be funded,  none may
     resemble the wall prototypes being tested.
5. Funding to enhance border security of nations in conflict in the Middle East,
    not here in the United States.
6. African Development Foundation, Corporation for National Community Service,
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting ALL will receive funding.
7. The National Endowment for the Arts & Humanities did get a cut, $1000 less than
     the combined $300 million received in previous budget!
8. Woodrow Wilson Center, a “think tank”  receives $12 million.
9. Planned Parenthood gets $500 million a year.
Many organizations on this list are self sustaining, pay their executives and employees
handsomely, yet each year they grovel to Congress for more funding, all indifferent
to the great debt taxpayers carry.
Share

GUANTANAMO BAY – JUSTICE DELAYED

Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018

 

These terrorists  are captured enemy combatants and should be dressed in orange jump suits, not the flamboyant Muslim head dresses and costumes that they wear to make a mockery of their trial.  Our justice system at Guantanamo should be just and swift and not the circus that is exposed in this article.  Camp Justice, indeed !!!  Nancy

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Justice Delayed at Guantanamo Bay

Paralyzed by endless litigation over procedure, the 9/11 war-crimes commission grinds on.

Guantanamo Bay’s Camp Justice, where the military commission meets.
Guantanamo Bay’s Camp Justice, where the military commission meets. PHOTO:MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, arrives in court dressed in a headdress, tunic and short white trousers (strict fundamentalist style, purportedly emulating Muhammad). His overgrown beard is dyed orange. He sits smugly, legs dangling, and talks with his attorneys while prosecutors play video footage of the Twin Tower attacks in the ultrasecure courtroom.

Walid bin Attash, who helped select and train hijackers, and Ramzi bin al Shibh, a member of al Qaeda’s Hamburg cell, wear camouflage jackets and headdresses, as if they were still in the Afghan mountains. But the camo is hunting gear from Sears—the Guantanamo Military Commission won’t let them wear anything realistic enough to be confused with the guards’ uniforms.

Ammar al Baluchi, KSM’s nephew and a courier for Osama bin Laden, dresses like a prince in a fictional epic: maroon, fez-like headcap, fancy, dark velvet vest. A richly embroidered prayer rug is slung over the back of his chair.

Mustafa al Hawsawi, a money man, looks like a martyr dressed for the grave, in white linen and a shawl embroidered with Palestinian flags. One way or another, all five are projecting versions of the fantasies common to radical Islamists.

This weeklong December hearing, which I attended as an observer, marked the U.S. government’s first formal presentation of evidence against the five living men most culpable for 9/11. It came during the fifth year of pretrial motions. The trial, now projected to take place in 2019, will no doubt be followed by many appeals. By the time it’s over, justice will have been delayed by decades.

In the courtroom, it wasn’t hard to see why. Start with the rules, which Congress, the Supreme Court and two administrations each had a hand in shaping. The Guantanamo trial procedures are, with a few exceptions, supposed to be as close as possible to those in courts-martial. As a result, every procedural niggle is litigated from the ground up, with no controlling precedents. The rules aim to keep the trial moving by allowing hearsay evidence, and to avoid the controversy over “torture” by excluding evidence obtained via contested interrogation methods. But in the constant litigation over procedure, defense attorneys can fight the former and keep the latter front and center.

  And whereas the decisions of other war-crimes tribunals have been final or nearly so, three Washington-based courts—the Court of Military Commission Review, the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court—will all hear appeals from Gitmo. With a trial this complex, that structure guarantees extensive litigation after the trial and overcaution now.

Intelligence bureaucracy protocols have complicated the administration of justice. After a defense lawyer allegedly mishandled a piece of classified evidence, a JAG major stammered to the court that it would take a year to resolve the matter through the bureaucracy, during which the trial would stop. The flabbergasted judge compelled an agency head to appear in court and speed things up.

The week I visited, a veteran prosecutor made a hash of an important motion. Mr. al Hawsawi’s attorneys argued that under the law of war, there wasn’t enough sustained fighting between the U.S. and al Qaeda to meet the definition of “hostilities,” before or even on 9/11, and therefore the court has no authority to try the defendants. Supporting this premise was a defense expert witness, a professor of international law.

The government hadn’t called its own international-law expert, and when the prosecutor rose to cross-examine this witness, he ran into a buzzsaw of objections, which the judge cuts short after 12 minutes with a mercy lunch break. In the afternoon, the judge had to intervene to ask the key questions: Wasn’t this court designed to try the 9/11 cases?

This was the worst misstep in a week with too many of them. Nonetheless, the government has a strong case. Prosecutors have presented proof that Mr. al Hawsawi moved money for nine of the 17 hijackers and showed video of him congratulating Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan after the attacks. But being right isn’t always enough to win a trial. And for the defense attorneys these trials are the greatest challenges of their careers.

JAG or civilian, most of these lawyers are able, principled death-penalty opponents. But some show signs of troubling moral inversion. One told me with a straight face that, given all her client has suffered, he should be let out with time served. All the civilian female defense attorneys wore Islamic headdresses when their clients were present—not at the request of their clients, nor for religious reasons, but sua sponte, to build trust. Maybe it works—but it also seems to aid the defendants’ efforts at costumed theatrics. Meanwhile, two of KSM’s attorneys have recently converted to Islam and pray with the defendants in the courtroom during breaks in the trial.

 Just as justice demands these men be executed if guilty, it also demands they have a chance to answer the charges against them. It is a domestic and foreign-policy imperative that the U.S. be seen to give a fair trial, and lay its evidence before the world. But this process looks like something else altogether—paralysis.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited Gitmo around Christmas, and the Trump administration is reportedly reviewing its approach to the trials. If so, good. Few topics are more in need of top-to-bottom re-evaluation.

Mr. Gallagher is a second-year student at New York University Law School. He was observing the trial on behalf of Judicial Watch and the NYU Federalist Society.

Share

PATRIOTIC MOVIE – 5:17 TO PARIS BY CLINT EASTWOOD

Sunday, January 21st, 2018

 

This patriotic movie opens in theaters on February 9, 2018.  Mark your calendars and let’s make this a big box office hit !  Did you notice that this heroic act by these three Americans died very quickly in the news back in 2015?   Thanks to CC Taylor of Texas for sharing.  Nancy
MOVIE TRAILER – 5:17 TO PARIS – HEROIC TRUE STORY OF THREE AMERICAN HEROES STOPPING  A TERRORIST ATTACK ON A TRAIN TO PARIS IN 2015     MOVIE BY CLINT EASTWOOD 
ARTICLE RE HOW HOLLYWOOD TRIES TO STOP THIS PATRIOTIC MOVIE

As Hollywood Tries To Stop New Patriotic Movie, Clint Eastwood Gives Them Brutal Surprise

 Clint Eastwood’s new movie, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is based on true events, where three American heroes stopped a terrorist on a Paris train in 2015, and it is causing the Hollywood crowd to go nuts. They just tried to put the kibosh on certain scenes that didn’t fit their liberal agenda, and boy, that made Eastwood mad. So, the famous actor and director who voted for President Donald Trump just slapped the leftists hard with a brutal surprise. You’re going to love it.

Clint Eastwood is an American icon and is probably the most famous conservative actor and director in Hollywood. Eastwood’s legendary work affords him the ability to pick and chose what type of movies he’ll make, and he loves making patriotic American movies.

His current film, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is in the final edits, but the Hollywood crowd hates it, and they tried to stop certain people from seeing it. The reason is the pro-American message it sends, described in this synopsis on Google: “In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris—an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe.”

The summary adds, “Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board. The heroic trio is comprised of Anthony Sadler, Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, and U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, who play themselves in the film.”

The movie stirs real patriotic emotion and honors the three American heroes who have military backgrounds. It shows an Islamic terrorist, who gains entry into France as a migrant, attempting to slaughter 500 people, with three Americans stopping him. This just isn’t the type of movie the Hollywood crowd makes, and they tried to screw Eastwood by giving it an “R” rating.

The reason they gave for the “R” rating was it showed “violence,” and this pissed off Clint Eastwood, who is making this film so teens could also see a movie with real American values. It was a cheap shot by the liberal Hollywood idiots, and Eastwood decided that wasn’t going to happen. The legendary star shocked the Hollywood crowd by taking on the rating board himself, something that never happens. And, not only did he take them on, he blew them away.

“Clint Eastwood has won an appeal to overturn the R rating originally assigned to his upcoming film, The 15:17 to Paris. Instead, it will be rated PG-13. According to a source, the R rating was given for the train attack scene at the center of the film, which the Classification and Rating Administration described as ‘a sequence of violence and bloody images,’” reported Hollywood Reporter.

They added, “The Classification and Rating Appeals Board says it reviews 800 to 900 films each year, with fewer than 12 ratings a year appealed. Eastwood represented his own film on behalf of Warner Bros., which opens the film in theaters on Feb. 9.”

Clint doesn’t just play a “tough guy” in his movies, he showed those Hollywood snakes that he really is a tough guy who won’t be pushed around. He’ll make any darn movie he wants to make, and they won’t stop him from making sure as many Americans as possible can see it.

Here’s the highly awaited trailer for “The 15:17 to Paris” that just came out:  (See above for movie trailer)

In case you’re wondering how much the Hollywood crowd detests this movie for its pro-American military theme along with its anti-Islam, anti-migrant message, here’s how one Hollywood critic describes it:

But in the hands of someone like Eastwood, this [movie] reads like a recruitment ad for the military. Nothing diminishes the heroism of these three men, but in Eastwood’s hands, it looks like he’s coasting on their achievements to tell a story that will make some people think that they too can be heroes if they just head down to their local recruitment office. [Source: Collider]

Well, let the haters hate. They loathe patriotism and they despise middle-class working Americans who love this country. They can’t stand Clint Eastwood who said that former President Barack Obama is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Lastly, what in the hell is wrong with sending the message to teens that they too can be heroes? What is wrong with giving some kids the idea that joining the military is a heroic thing to do? This is exactly the kind of movie our young people need to see in today’s world that is filled with idiot celebrities pushing anti-American messages. If this movie inspires just one young American to join the military and make their life worthwhile, then Clint Eastwood’s film will be a resounding success.

(more…)

Share

BRITISH ARMY RECRUITMENT FOCUSES ON ISLAM, SEXUAL DIVERSITY, BANISHES MACHO IMAGE

Thursday, January 11th, 2018

 

 

www.breitbart.com/london/2018/01/10/british-army-recruitment-campaign-targets-gender-diversity-islam-tells-troops-cry/

British Army Recruitment Campaign Focuses on Islam, Sexual Diversity, Banishes Macho Image

The British Army has been slammed for bowing to “political correctness” after spending £1.6 million on a campaign engaging with gender and racial identity politics and encouraging troops to be more emotional.

Army representatives say they want to encourage diversity of religion, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity with their ‘Army Belonging 2018’ campaign, as well as telling recruits its okay for them to cry.

In promotional videos, voiced by serving soldiers, recruits ask: “Can I be gay in the Army?”, “Do I have to be a superhero?”, and “What if I get emotional in the Army?”

In another, a Muslim soldier explains how the Army has allowed him to practice Islam, but Christian soldiers are not given the same reassurance in the campaign.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

Share

MOVIE TRAILER – THE DARKEST HOUR – WINSTON CHURCHILL

Thursday, January 4th, 2018

 

One of the finest  movies I have seen in a very long time !   Nancy
The Darkest Hour – the story of Winston Churchill, as the newly appointed British Prime Minister,  facing tremendous pressures from his political cabinet, makes the decision to fight against Hitler rather than try to negotiate a peace that would  hopefully slow down Hitler as he advances swiftly through Europe as one country after another falls to the Nazis.
MOVIE TRAILER – THE DARKEST HOUR  -WINSTON CHURCHILL 
Share

WILL SAUDI ARABIA LEAD ISLAMIC MILITARY FORCES AGAINST JIHADIS OR US ?

Monday, November 27th, 2017

 

November 26, 2017

Will Saudi Arabia Lead Islamic Military Forces Against Jihadis or Us?

Sharia is always the filter through which the un-Islamic world must understand leaders of the Islamic world.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud opened the inaugural meeting of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) –  made up of Defense Ministers from 41 muslim countries – on Sunday November 26. 2017.

The focus of the meeting was to deal with “terrorism” in muslim countries.

Many in the West are “wondering” if this Prince will be the one muslim leader to “transform” Islam into the peaceful, love-thy-neighbor, utopian Islam Western leaders are sure exists.

In his opening remarks the Prince stated:  “The biggest threat from terrorism and extremism is not only killing innocent people and spreading hate, but tarnishing the reputation of our religion and distorting our belief.”

Applying the rule that sharia (Islamic law) is the filter through which we must translate the Prince’s comment, we get:

“The biggest threat from the killing of muslims for non sharia-prescribed reasons and moving the Islamic Movement along too quickly is not only the unlawful killing of muslims and the spreading of un-Islamic ideas, but the reduction of Islam’s ability to deceive the infidels in order to spread sharia.”

When read in its proper context, the idea the Saudi Prince, or any other credible leader of a sharia-adherent Islamic nation, would want to do anything other than what Islam/sharia commands them to do is folly.

Will Islamic nations join together to militarily confront the jihadis of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda or the “terrorists” of the non-muslim world?

What do you think is more likely?

Share
Search All Posts
Categories