http://z6inkpzpo4ai.az.pl/oilma.html?picbb=kqdpsj

America’s Compass Series - Part I

America’s Compass Series - Part I

Lack of Defined US Strategy

Continues

By Paul E. Vallely

March 17, 2011

Paraphrasing General Of the Army Douglas MacArthur’s speech - West Point in 1962:

“Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be …

They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the nation's defense…They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for action;…

to learn to stand up in the storm…to master yourself before you seek to master others…

to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.”

America – it is time to reposition American Armed Forces to protect America first. I want our leaders (both civilian and military) to clearly define and prioritize the foreign and domestic threats to America and its people. To date, government policy elitists in the United States have demonstrated an almost complete ignorance of history in matters regarding forward strategic planning. While virtually every military officer and many policy “wonks” have been taught strategic planning at some level, it is obvious many have thrown most of the lessons out the door upon graduating. This is demonstrated more than ever by our senior commanders and State Department political appointees that seem to be void of vision and wisdom. One only needs to observe the international scene and turmoil in Libya, the Middle East and our Southern Border.

Since the 80s, we have been engaged in conflicts throughout the Middle East, from the Iranian hostage crisis, to the Beirut bombing of our Marines in 1982, to Iraq, and Afghanistan. We have witnessed one debacle after another. Why do our leaders and strategists still languish in failed strategies? Before we commit our military we must ask: “is this enemy a threat to the United States and the American people?” Never should this sovereign nation bow to edicts, mandates, and direction from the UN, the Arab League, or anyone else.

In my opinion, we commit our Armed Forces to wars and conflicts for the following three reasons:

• Threat to the United States and its Territories
• Threat to Americans at home or abroad
• Threat to US assets wherever they may be…….(e.g. Embassies, US Bases, corporate holdings)

-------None of these requirements are met regarding Libya…………….

Yes, we have operational war planners at all levels of command, in the White House, and we have a National Security Team, supported by military commands across the globe to guide and lead us. But where are the common sense and rational senior command strategists; trained to be innovative and aggressive… positioned to win our nation’s wars quickly and decisively?

Rarely are the Principles of War successful combat leaders in the past have used to achieve success and victory mentioned. They cannot even talk in terms of victory, winning, and bringing the troops home. Rather, they seem to eschew victory, possibly for political correctness at home. Billions of dollars and human resources have been consumed by this massive Middle East Sponge. Why are our leaders trying to transform our magnificent forces into one optimized for counterinsurgency and humanitarian missions using conventional war strategies followed by long-term military occupations? In my opinion, and supported in fact; we are not fighting insurgencies, rather, we are fighting Islamic Jihadists and a global Caliphate.

Track back to Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan. Victory in war appears lost in the world of political correctness and appeasement. Our military and policy wonks, which use words such as asymmetrical and kinetic, need a refresher course in military strategy and tactics. There is no reason to order our forces into enemy territories requiring large commitments of resources without the ‘Endgame” solely based on our interests. We can strike the enemy from any of our established “Lily Pads” when intelligence dictates a clear and present danger.

“Lily Pads” are established bases in safe areas where joint force operations can be launched at any time. Based on well-established human and technical intelligence operations, we can hit any enemy target globally; with precision, decisiveness, lethality, and assured success. However, these amazing tools are not being properly applied because of the lack of coherent strategies; irresponsibly endangering the lives of our warriors. The world has literally never seen anything like our capability and power; capabilities that are at least equal to the rest of the world combined. Why tie its hands?

Not all political goals are achievable this way, but most are, and those that cannot be achieved through conventional operations likely cannot be achieved by the application of even the most sophisticated counterinsurgency doctrine either. We seem incapable of discerning the differences in conventional and non-conventional warfare. The war against mainstream Islamic Jihadist forces and a sick ideology has been, and will continue to be one requiring unconventional solutions. Our leaders either do not understand this, or are in abject fear of calling this a war against a manifestly evil ideology, cloaked in the robes of a so-called religion.

Our military is, and should only be used for national security, defending our country and borders, and defeating our enemies before they bring havoc and harm to our citizens. When will we realize that you cannot “Nation-Build” in an area of conflict until the enemy is totally defeated? That is akin to repainting one room in a house while a fire rages in another in the same house.

Why are we so worried about what others think? Did these so-called allies not have to be bailed out numerous times for their failed thinking in the past? Will we ever learn from our own history, so we are not doomed to repeat failed thinking? Einstein’s definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Have we become a paper tiger?

The thought of “winning hearts and minds” is moot; we must understand that this is a tactic, just like carpet bombing, internment camps, enhanced interrogations; they are not strategic plans. Tactics are tools used to ensure that a strategic plan is completed. Once completed, the war has reached an end-state. Sadly, policy makers and military decision makers have proven their incompetence in determining the end-state for Afghanistan. Without a clear end-state, designed and set, a strategic plan cannot be created, executed, or fulfilled. Therefore, we are seen as a weak, directionless ship without a rudder.

Those who have ever been taught strategic planning in any formalized military school should know that such planning must be accomplished through a systematic methodology of “reverse planning,” and an end-state must be identified. Once identified, it is then and only then, that decision makers can make critical decisions with confidence, and be responsible leaders. As you know, Stand Up America raised the threat level of our Southern Borders to be higher than Afghanistan and any of the countries in the Middle East other than Iran.

George Patton and Douglas McArthur, arguably two of the greatest war time leaders in our history, were men who accepted responsibility for their actions. Patton was publicly ridiculed by the Nazi’s due to inept U.S. leadership incapable of understanding his leadership style. He and McArthur ultimately paid the consequences when each was forced to relinquish command. They had very few regrets in their actions. Whether they were right, wrong, or indifferent, their actions obtained the praises of the men and women who followed them into battle.

America – Bring out our Warriors now and save our Country…It is time to stand tall in this battle to save America!

Paul E. Vallely Is Chairman and Founder of Stand Up America

www.standupamericaus.com

The legal evidence, Obama v the Law

A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt
that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

SCRIBD DOCUMENT for download

Natural usurpation

The fact that enforcing the constitutional authority by impeachment lies with a majority vote in the house, where the majority created the event, requiring impeachment to correct by acting in violation of their oaths in the first place, is required to sustain a trial in the senate if grounds exist for a legal hearing is insurmountable without a legal action to remove all doubt that a prosecution under law in civil court would result in convictions with severe penalties. It is indisputable that the Supreme Court is evading it's duty as well regarding the one issue that would sustain a senate hearing, assessing what the intent of the phrase NBC means based on the primary source for it, John Jay's letter to George Washington, to replace "citizen" as a qualification for office as was first proposed.

John Jay's letter to George Washington;

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

With regard to the intent, one must honestly seek to ascertain what a "strong check" means and what a "foreigner" means. To check is to test or stop, an act. To make it strong would mean to make it superior or effective. So to make a test of ones allegiance effective or superior to all who had not proved it by actually swearing it or fighting for Independence we must first accept that those tested had either not come of age to fight, were not yet born or would immigrate seeking citizenship in the future. It should be noted that the war was engaged by men, women and youth and in fact all who were of physical capacity and mental soundness to do so.

All unsworn inhabitants and immigrants from he war of independence forward were foreign to the new nation, thus foreigners is defined. wishing to become citizens fell to congress to make available a route to citizenship. See Constitution art 1 sec 8 ;To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, .

Knowing that congress would be made of many immigrants it would be easy for them to insert an immigrant or "foreigner" into that highest office if they were able to legislate it so. This is not a trivial matter and not so far fetched as to warrant attention as the founders went to great lengths to contemplate the avenues of which our new liberties might be usurped. Those discussions are captured in the federalist papers and they are considered as founding documents. Often in those documents there were cases proposed that were dismissed as being so highly unlikely to occur they did not warrant debate or concern however the check to foreigners entering the highest office indeed did as indicated by the wording of the qualifications adopted. There exists a congressional record of the discussions as well as a published dissertation by David Ramsay, an esteemed founder. A very important part of the Ramsay dissertation is in discerning what tacit consent is when minors flow into adulthood and choose their allegiances. Education following the path they choose is an indicator as much as residence.This is why citizens have an indisputable right to know our politicians education.

To make a check on their power was wise and fitting with the planned architecture throughout the constitutions designing process so we must accept that no citizen whose status could have been crafted by congress could be defined as a NBC.

By law, then as now, any person not a citizen is a foreigner. By law then and now any foreigner either lawfully here or not has a right by law to exit this nation with both his property and his offspring. Having that right extends to those offspring as well and so makes them free to apply for citizenship upon reaching the age of majority or lay claim to that which they were entitled to by birth, a foreign one.

The fourteenth amendment pertaining to citizenship; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." A subject defined by Ramsay; is one under the power of another. No foreigner, or his property or offspring are subject to the United States. Subjugating children born on the soil under it's control would be the exact political principle the founders annulled through independence.

The operation of the strong check is not affected in any way by amendment 14 as this only removes the congressional power to legislate the status of those having no other birthright to citizenship anywhere else and those naturalized prior to the amendment but not having acquired the rights of citizenship due to chattel or indentured slavery. It does not and can not compel citizenship on those that are legally subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign body. That would not respect international law in all cases where holding dual citizenship would disown a person from his native country simply by birth on US soil if their nation forbade dual citizenship. That was true in 1968 as Indonesia did not allow dual citizens to retain their rights as citizens.

That said, dual citizenship confers foreign allegiance that must be respected. Therefore, a foreign allegiance is negated by defining only those born of two citizen parents as NBC. Thus, the operation of the fourteenth amendment does not interfere with the strong check as intended nor the definition or creation of a NBC.He who argues otherwise is motivated by other than an honest desire to interpret the intent of the founders and as a result by operation of the fourteenth amendment would then compel upon all born inhabitants a NBC status without respect for the rights of foreign nationals and their governments sovereign rights. We would then have asserted the powers of a king over his subjects. It is pointless to argue that is the case.

Jerry Moore: 'Straight Pride' T-shirts warn gay students - Little Falls, NY - The Times

A perfect example of a complete ignorance of religion. Jerry Moore takes out of context examples of offenses against a community that learned it had to establish methods of teaching civil behavior to completely uncivil travelers and traders from outside. He classifies it as hate speech that a sovereign people would seek to protect their community from human animals by warning them not to engage in acts that would upset their lives. He fails to recognize the real dangers posed by lawless and amoral people of any age and obviously fails to delve into the question of what limits on behavior should there be and how do we teach those limits and enforce them.

He might wish to explain why it is that there is a gay community that is very diverse in it's behaviors and it is simply dishonest to portray them as typical human couples seeking the right to enjoy their mutual passions. In reality there are a range of issues which need addressing. What is age appropriate consent? What age is sex appropriate at all? What is a family and what is a safe environment? Why is there an array of fetishes being paraded in the street if ones private sexual life is none of anyone else's business? Why are drugs frequently used among those who are dabbling in casual sex? Jerry Moore has no answers as these questions remain unanswered even after decades of their obvious need to be answered. Instead it is a defense to assert that it is solely out of hate alone that laws designed to protect those who would enjoy a peaceful community are enacted. Maybe the best medicine for people who are that selfish is to go and live among a tribal culture and learn what society is and how it survives. They do not teach from books but from word and penalty and there is no question of what is normal as normal is common sense.

Jerry Moore: 'Straight Pride' T-shirts warn gay students - Little Falls, NY - The Times

movie, The Soviet Story

This movie can be purchased for personal , educational or resale @ http://www.neoflix.com/store/PER53/ or watched FREE at the link below

 http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/28771192

 

 It will also be aired on PBS stations whose views are supportive of educating people about the true history of Russia and its' deadly encounter with socialism/ communism. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.articlesoffreedom.us

Petition To Remove Stalin from D-Day Memorial

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/21/petition-seeks-to-remove-stalin-from-d-day-memorial/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.articlesoffreedom.us

LTC Lakin on radio describing the challenge to Obamas' eligibility

http://live.radioamerica.org/loudwater/player.pl?name=ggl&url=http://media.blubrry.com/ggliddy/www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/feeds.radioamerica.org/loudwater/ggl/000001795_000_000000006.mp3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Codes to live by

A Tale of Personal Integrity
As told, with considerable pride, by my father George A Rice.
The time frame of this story was the late 1800's as best as I can figure. My grandfather, George W Rice, was born in 1860 and his age and the method of building timber frame barns places it about this time.
Mr. Alonzo Dingman, retired at the time and living in the village of Herkimer, owned a dairy farm situated in the town of Minden, Montgomery County N.Y. The dairy barn burned and Mr. Dingman, aka Lon Dingman, wished to have the barn replaced. He met, in the lobby of the Fort Plain Hotel, with my Grandfather and the tenant farmer who ran the farm for him. I am sorry that I do not know the name of this man as he was just as crucial to this endeavor as the other principals. I understand that they ordered a bottle of whiskey and proceeded to calculate the cost of building a new barn. The agreement was that the tenant was to cut the logs in the farm's woodlot and haul the logs to the barn site. Other logs were hauled to a saw mill for boards, planks and other smaller framing members. Granddad and his crew would hew the timbers square, build the timber frame and finish the barn for a certain sum.
The three men shook hands and left. That was the total contract, just a handshake.
Granddad finished the barn, got his horse and buggy and went to Herkimer to see Mr. Dingman about being paid. He told Mr. Dingman that the barn was finished and would he come see it that he might be paid. Mr.Dingman replied "if you say the barn is finished it is finished". He paid granddad what was owed on the spot.
Such was the value of personal integrity!
Charles W Rice


John Scallion’s integrity
When I was a child of 6 or 7 years a man came walking up our driveway. Dad was called and came out and talked with him.
Dad and mom had purchased a narrow strip of land on the east of our property with a 20 foot by 20 foot shed on it.
This man, John "Jack" Scallion wanted to live there. Dad knew that Jack was a drinker but didn't hold that against him. Dad was afraid that he might have drunken friends in with him and so refused his request.
Dad went back in the house and talked with mom who said "you know that if Jack promises to let no one in there he will keep his word" Dad came back out and and called Jack back. He promised to let no one in and was given permission
to live there. Jack kept his promise to the day he died.
Many times I saw men come to talk with Jack in all kinds of weather and he always stood in the doorway with a hand on each door jamb. No one ever got in !!!
In the winter of 1934/35 my youngest brother. Gerald was a toddler when
Jack came to the house to ask if my mother needed anything from
Bessie Schuyler’s store at Indian Castle. Gerald heard his voice and came out from the living room. Jack said "I’m going to the store and will bring you back some candy". It was a cold and stormy day and he left to get mother a loaf of bread. When he returned with the bread Gerald came out from the living room Jack realized he had forgotten the candy. Although he was plastered with snow and freezing he, immediately, turned around and walked back to the store, a distance of about a mile, and got my brother a few cents worth of candy. His excuse was "you must never lie to a child".
I ,personally, witnessed this entire episode.
Such was the integrity of this humble man. My father, always, held up this type of person, regardless of their faults,
As someone to be admired.
Charles W Rice

Deriving intent from the founders

Any judge with an ounce of fidelity to his oath would and should discover the truth about Obama and his qualifications since no other law must be satisfied before the supreme law, the constitution. Should any judge discover a violation or abrogation it would then be an entirely different case and legitimately delay or even settle the case being brought. The ONLY reason a sworn upholder of the law would place artificial rules, common law, states laws, congressional law or any other barrier between the supreme law and the upholding of it would be to diminish that constitutional law by removing its protections from the people. Courts may very well function within their rules however it is clear the prime goal of all laws are to protect that constitution not protect those who are in violation of it or even seeking to violate it as a result of some other indirect act. Since all courts have the power of subpoena they can all seek to uphold the constitution by merely demanding the proofs required by the supreme law be made public. It is their duty to do this whenever a valid question comes in front of them.

Two brief quotes from Hamilton;

“In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”
Alexander HamiltonThe Founders ConstitutionVolume 1, Chapter 3, Document 5http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
It is not otherwise to be supposed that the constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.
Alexander HamiltonFederalist #78Founders ConstitutionVolume 1, Chapter 17, Document 24http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s24.html

A heritage in arms

I am proud to share with my fellow Americans my Oath of service to my country together with its constitution. As an honorably discharged USN veteran I add myself to a long line of veterans who served this nation. My roots begin with Daniel Frederick Bakeman, the last surviving veteran of the Revolution, and continue all the way to my father who served in the Korean War. Along this family tree are immigrants who made themselves Americans and raised good men who also served both in peace and war.

To live in this land of liberty and enjoy its protections we must never take for granted that they are permanent or secure simply because we have a constitution that states so. Our freedom stems from the will of men to abandon all else to procure it for the future generations. To constantly guard against enemies both foreign and domestic as a patriot, one must never lose sight of the fact that evil is not known by color, shape or name but by subtle acts disguised such that it mingles between us undetected and at its time of choosing may rise to take something precious away should we lower the guard in complacency. That all people not suffer the responsibility of keeping that watch while enjoying this land we entrust to certain individuals, known to themselves as patriots and keepers of the oath, to defend the constitution should it come under attack or be usurped.

That all may know the words and provisions of the constitution, it is made public and while not required of a citizen to know or understand all of it, to be an informed citizen one should at the least read it, read the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of independance as well for they are your heritage. They are the cause of liberty for which so many souls passed and many more aim to follow. I am proud to join that line and keep that oath so long as I shall live.