Marine Generals Against the NDAA

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, both 4 star Marine generals, wrote a op-ed letter, published in the New York Times on December 12, 2011, demanding that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill in order to protect our country from the “false choice between our safety and ideals.” Their problem with the NDAA is that it allows the government use the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.

It then gets into one of the most blatant anti American treasonous provisions in the history of the United States.

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.

Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise. The NDAA basically throws Posse Comitatus out the window. This is a power that the military have not even asked for this extreme new power.....however, they can be ordered to use.

OP-ED Piece, 12 Dec, NY Times

Guantánamo Forever?

By CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR

In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week (Cowboy's note: This Op-Ed was written before the vote. The NDAA did pass and was signed into law by President Obama.

This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an
unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counter-terrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.

Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.

A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut
Guantánamo, not extend it.

Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.

Things that Piss Me Off Right After Christmas

New York Times calls the U.S. the stingiest Nation. I shouldn't even get mad at anything coming out of the New York Times which basically has the same credibility as the National Enquirer, but,...these America haters continue to pick a topic and get it bass ackwards. Not only does the U.S. give generously to all sorts of charities and nations, we give money to our enemies. We give hundreds of millions of dollars to Palestinians who were cheering in the streets while watching the 9-11 attacks on Television. The problem is that we are too generous to the wrong people and nations.

Social Security Payroll Tax Cut. This is the issue where the Federal Government reduces the amount of tax that comes out of our pay checks towards Social Security. Rather than enact any kind of Federal Income Tax or Capital Gains reduction or reform, Obama's brilliant brainstorm of reducing the amount we contribute to the already unfunded and going bankrupt Social Security is a brain teaser to put it mildly. The Democrats and the mainstream liberal media (there I go being redundant again) sure spun this as a Democrat victory and a Republican defeat. A rational person will see this as a defeat for the American People. We the People get a tiny amount of additional take home income in out checks, while social security continues heading towards a cliff. Obama gets to shelf any decision on the oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S., and we'll be back in the same boat again in two months. The promise of the Democrats to work towards a year long reduction in social security payroll tax is like staring at a flat tire when your engine is blown and the steering wheel is missing.

Then we have that idiot Harry Reid (D-NV who stated: "Everything we do around here does not have to wind up in a fight." Well Harry, I reckon it does when one side wants to spend this country into bankruptcy and default, while over taxing the job creators to sabotage the economy, meanwhile placating the people by giving them tax reduction gimmicks that put a few bucks in their pockets at the expense of Social Security solvency. Are we to be bought that cheaply?


Making Newt to look like a Bomb Thrower. With George H.W. Bush formally supporting Mitt Romney, the media train is reporting that Newt Gingrich is too much of a bomb thrower,...much too caustic to gain mainstream Republican support. On the other hand, they paint him as a classic political insider. Wonder which one is closer to the truth as it can't be both. Where the "Bomb Throwing" rep comes from is the 1990 fight between the first Bush Administration's desire to raise taxes, despite Bush's promise not to do so. Anyone remember the "Read my lips, no new taxes" speech? Gingrich's refusal to support Bush's 1990 budget deal was seen as both disloyal and anti-pragmatic, and that's we the lack of support from the Republican mainstream comes from.

Air Force to purchase Brazilian planes – Obama nixes more jobs

First Obama is trying to derail a pipeline from Canada to Texas that would help alleviate our dependency on Middle Eastern oil as well as provide jobs for a reported 20,000 Americans. Now he is sending Defense contracts to foreign countries. Shame on him.

Editor’s Note – In this year of Presidential race politics, with National Security and Jobs/Economy the top concerns of the American voter, why is Obama continually finding ways to kill jobs. The delay on the Canadian oil pipeline until after the election means thousands of jobs will not be filled, maybe ever. Then there is this $1 Billion Air Force project going to a foreign company. Not just any company, but one with ties to Iran . How does this make sense? Your tax dollars are going overseas and possibly into the very hands of our enemies.

Remember, when the Pentagon spends money inside the United States , tax-payer money, those funds go into our economy. It creates jobs, and the money earned goes directly into the system, keeping others employed, all with our tax dollars. Instead, that money will go to Brazil. That is a double hit on our economy.

Obama Admin Bans US Aircraft Maker, Favors Non-US Firm with Ties to Iran on Light Aircraft Project

PJ Tattler
By Bryan Preston

Late Thursday the Obama administration abruptly knocked Kansas aircraft maker Hawker Beechcraft out of contention for a $1 billion project to make a fleet of lightweight counterinsurgency aircraft for the Air Force. Hawker Beechcraft is, understandably, disturbed and asking questions.

The Air Force has notified Hawker Beechcraft Corp. that its Beechcraft AT-6 has been excluded from competition to build a light attack aircraft, a contract worth nearly $1 billion, the company said.

The company had hoped to its AT-6, an armed version of its T-6 trainer, would be chosen for the Light Air Support Counter Insurgency aircraft for the Afghanistan National Army Corps. The chosen aircraft also would be used as a light attack armed reconnaissance aircraft for the U.S. Air Force.

The piston planes are designed for counterinsurgency, close air support, armed overwatch and homeland security, The Wichita Eagle reported.

Hawker Beechcraft officials said in a news release that they were “confounded and troubled” by the Air Force’s decision. The company said it is asking the Air Force for an explanation and will explore all options.

Hawker Beechcraft said it had been working with the Air Force for two years and had invested more than $100 million to meet the Air Force’s requirements for the plane. It noted that the Beechcraft AT-6 had been found capable of meeting the requirements in a demonstration program led by the Air National Guard.

“We have followed the Air Force’s guidance close, and based on what we have seen, we continue to believe that we submitted the most capable, affordable and sustainable light attack aircraft,” the company said.

The company has said that winning the contract would have kept its T-6 production line running after 2015. About 1,400 employees in 20 states – including 800 at Hawker Beechcraft in Wichita – work on the AT-6 and T-6 programs for Beechcraft and its U.S. suppliers and partners.

So that’s another 1,400 American jobs lost. And it gets worse. By knocking Hawker Beechcraft out, the Pentagon has limited the “competition” to one company, a company that is not only not an American manufacturer, it’s a government-owned entity with ties to our enemies. The company is Embraer, which is controlled by the government of Brazil and has close ties to the government of Iran , as Timothy Lee wrote for the Tatler on Nov. 10.

According to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “In 1989, Brazil chose to sell Tucanos, Embraer’s relatively low cost and basic military aircraft, to Iran .” Currently, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force operates around 40 Embraer T-27 Tucanos, according to theWashington Institute. In fact, the Iranians use the Tucano as their primary close air support aircraft.

In recent years, Brazil has continued its troubling friendship with Iran and ruthless leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Hudson Institute notes that, “Another area of tension between Brazil and the United States relates to Iran . In November 2009, President da Silva invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Brazil . In May 2010, da Silva helped broker a deal in which Iran would ship only a portion of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey for reprocessing; the rest would remain in Iranian hands, where it could be further enriched for nuclear weapon production.”

That willingness to set ethics aside for the betterment of their bottom line illustrates the danger in the US purchasing military aircraft from Brazil .

The matter becomes even more troublesome as news trickles out about the recent Iran-lead assassination attempts on Saudi/US officials on American soil. Even more recently, details have emerged implicating Iran as the mastermind of an illegal plot to smuggle electronic components used in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) out of the US through Iran for US on our troops in Iraq.

Why is the administration making a decision to exclude an American manufacturer in favor of a maker with such a history? This is the Obama administration’s second billion-dollar giveaway to the Brazilian government in 2011; the first was its outrageous offshore oil loan guarantee decision in March. The two decisions siphon more than $2 billion and more than 21,000 jobs out of the US economy. Of the two, putting a foreign manufacturer with ties to our enemies in charge of a project to build anti-terror weaponry may be the most disturbing. And this is the Obama administration’s second major decision against an American aircraft manufacturer, the first being the NLRB’s unprecedented lawsuit against Boeing and its South Carolina Dreamliner plant. Both states impacted — Kansas and South Carolina — are right-to-work states. And then there’s this president’s sustained rhetorical war against corporate jet owners. Somebody has to make those jets, and Hawker Beechcraft is among the manufacturers indirectly targeted.