This is from Breitbarts Big HollyWood.

This vapid twit needs to move to some third world Muslim sh*t hole.

Live as a woman under Islam’s rule, then if she is still alive come back and explain how misunderstood these thugs are.

I personally say Damn her as hundreds of our soldiers died to give her free speech and she disrespects them.


During an interview with The Daily Beast, actress Kristen Stewart indicated that terrorists at Guantanamo Bay are misunderstood and that joining the United States Armed Forces is the job of a simpleton.

Camp X-Ray is Stewart’s newest film that illustrates the life of a “simple” female soldier who receives orders as a prison guard to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Surrounded by jihadists, she bears witness to the apparent cruelty in which they live and befriends a suspected terrorist. She then questions her role in the U.S. military.

“All she want’s to think is ‘They did 9/11, they’re bad, f*ck that, I’m going to do my job and I’m going to do it well,’ But then she gets down there and just can’t accept it; she can’t conform to that,” she said.

Protagonist Amy Cole enlisted in the Army as an act of patriotism in the wake of 9/11. Stewart seemingly finds the standards of intelligence for joining the armed forces rather low.

“She’s simple, not very smart, and really socially inadequate—but a good person. So, if you can sign up, put a uniform on, and erase yourself, you don’t have to consider yourself anymore,” she said.

According to Stewart, judging the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is reportedly “f*cking evil” and “crazy,” because they are people, too.

It’s a ridiculous idea for you to think that you know anything for sure in life—other than to take care of your fellow people. Where the f*ck do you get off thinking otherwise? These two people couldn’t be from more different worlds and perspectives, and probably disagree fundamentally on most things, but there’s a through-line for all of us—and that’s what people forget, and that’s what makes people capable of doing terrible things to each other. What makes you different from any other person that walks the earth?

Camp X-Ray reminds people that “this thing” (GTMO) is still present because President Barack Obama didn’t close it down as he promised in 2009.

Stewart claimed she didn’t act in the film to make a political statement, but she conducted a thorough investigation into the detention center since it wasn’t relevant in the news, which she reportedly doesn’t watch.

I don’t want to talk about that sh*t at all. Trust me, I’m only asking for it. When it comes time to stand up and affect change, I’m not the type of person to shout from the rooftops. Just because you’re an actor and in the public eye, people think that’s how you must be. But there are other ways to do that. That’s not me.

When it comes to feminism, Stewart wants to silence her “overly-aggressive” peers who discredit other feminists by being too emotional. She apparently finds it embarrassing and wishes they would simply calm down.

“But that being said, it’s a really ridiculous thing to say you’re not a feminist,” she said.




1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

This is outrageous beyond words the cross has been in

place almost 60 years.

The article’s author says the Obama Regime’s defense of this

this case has been lackluster at best.

What else can be expected from the two Americas hating

Communist Holder and Obama?


After 24 years of litigation, a federal court revealed in an emotional hearing that it has ordered the famous Mount Soledad Cross removed from a veterans memorial, holding it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Since 1913, a cross has stood as the centerpiece of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, surrounded by nearly 3,000 granite plaques, individually honoring war heroes from every American war, from the Revolutionary War to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The structure is a 29-foot Latin cross, which was erected in 1954. For much of this time, it was in a city park in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego. Then, in 1989, the ACLU filed a lawsuit, arguing that allowing a cross on government land violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This memorial has been embroiled in litigation ever since.

In 2004, Congress passed a law making this city-owned display a “national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces,” dedicated as a tribute to those service members “who sacrificed their lives in the defense of the United States.” Congress officially found that the “patriotic and inspirational symbolism of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial provides solace to the families and comrades of the veterans it memorializes.” Although the Latin cross is identifiably a Christian symbol, Congress noted that the memorial is also “replete with secular symbols” and symbols of other faiths, such as 18 Stars of David. In this pluralistic context, the cross plays the role of commemorating veterans’ service and death.

That law sparked the latest round of litigation in federal court. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision on this display, holding that because of the cross, the memorial “primarily conveys a message of endorsement of religion.” Specifically, it “projects a government endorsement of Christianity.”

The United States Supreme Court denied review in 2012 but sent a written message noting that the lower courts were still considering whether the memorial could be modified in a way that preserves its character. In a statement by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court signaled that it would seriously consider taking the case if these additional efforts did not produce a positive outcome.

After almost two years of additional proceedings, on Dec. 12 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California reluctantly held that under controlling precedent from the Ninth Circuit, the district judge still had no choice but to declare the cross an endorsement of Christianity. He has ordered it removed within 90 days.

Judge Larry Alan Burns read the order from the bench in court and appeared to choke up as he ordered the memorial’s destruction, observers told Breitbart News. Burns then issued a stay of his decision to give the memorial cross’s lawyers time to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Originally, the U.S. Justice Department defended the cross memorial. However, when President Barack Obama was elected, the government’s defense of the memorial under Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to become lackluster, and the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Association stepped in to bolster the defense. They are represented by Allyson Ho, a partner at the powerhouse firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Ted Cruz was a partner at that firm prior to his Senate election, and in fact Cruz and Ho were the co-chairs of the firm’s Supreme Court practice group), and Jeff Mateer and Hiram Sasser fromLiberty Institute, one of America’s foremost religious-liberty law firms.

Hiram Sasser tells Breitbart News, “We will continue to fight for this memorial and the selfless sacrifice and service of all the millions of veterans it represents; it is the least we can do for those who gave so much to us all.”



Semper Paratus – United States Coast Guard

Leave a comment


Politicians and Gun Free Zones To Blame For Another Tragedy

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Gun Free Zones mean a target rich environment.

Dumb assed laws like passed by Bill Clinton make are military personnel targets.

What a dumb ass our military unarmed on base. 


Though the investigation continues, there are several things we already know  about this shooting: It happened in a ‘Gun Free Zone’, it was carried out by a  disturbed individual and finally of course, the liberal left and the media are  demanding more ‘gun-control’, the very thing that contributed to the deaths of  some 12 innocent people.

You would think that after the terrorist attack at Fort Hood when a devout  Muslim Major Nidal Hasan, walked into a U.S. Army pre-deployment center and  conducted his own personal jihad against uniformed service members; 12 murdered,  31 wounded, we would have learned from our mistakes. We did not, in fact our  government made conditions worse.

In his September 13, 2011, article titled : Voices  From the Field — Domestic Terrorist vs. Our Troops: They don’t stand a  chance, Paul G. Markel laid it on the line with his biting commentary about  how political correctness had contributed to the numbers of innocents killed.  Markel became a United States Marine in 1987. He has spent his entire adult life  in the service of this nation during times of war and peace as a Marine, Police  Officer, and Small Arms and Tactics instructor.

‘In the aftermath the nation was in shock. Many of my family members and  acquaintances were stunned to learn that Hasan was able to walk through the  crowded hall unchecked and fire shot after shot. “How could this happen?” a  family member asked me. “Why didn’t the soldiers shoot back?” The answer was  shocking to those outside of military circles but patently obvious to those of  us who have been there. Every soldier in the center was unarmed. Hasan’s murder  spree was only stopped after two CIVILIAN security officers arrived on scene and  shot him…Disarming the warriors is not a new trend. It has been ongoing since  long before I earned the Eagle, Globe and Anchor. While on active duty I was a  member of the Marine Security Forces Battalion. We were tasked with overseeing  the security of nuclear weapons both on land and sea. As a Corporal of the Guard  I was in charge of the Detachment Armory that contained M-60 machine-guns, M-16  and M-14 rifles, M203 grenade launchers and thousands of rounds of  ammunition.

During duty hours I wore a loaded sidearm and issued pistols, shotgun, and  rifles to my troops. Nonetheless, we were forbidden to possess personally owned  firearms and even our personally owned Ka-Bar fighting knives had to be locked  in a safe in the 1st Sergeants office. Yes, I was trusted with the security of  myriad nuclear weapons but could not be trusted to keep a fighting knife in my  locker.

In the year 2011 with an ongoing war against terrorists worldwide you’d think  the situation would have changed and that every service member would be trained  and armed to fight off attack at any time. Having spent three years (2007 to  2010) teaching small arms and tactics to troops preparing for overseas  deployment to combat I can testify to the fact that is at least as bad if not  worse.’ – Markel

Another contributing factor brought to light by a news organization:  Aaron Alexis, the ex-Navy reservist who killed 12 in the massacre at  Washington Navy Yard, had been treated for mental issues including paranoia, a  sleep disorder and had been hearing voices. Politicians choose to ignore  the part mental illness plays in these mass killings, unless the murderer fits  their profile, and it would be politically advantageous to point it out. For  example, there have been numerous cases in the past where the media has  incorrectly reported that the shooter was: Christian, white, veteran, NRA  supporter, conservative…not the typical profile of one of these mass  murderers.

Then there is the villianization of the gun; but not just any gun, it’s that  evil AR-15! Just to be clear, Alexis did NOT carry an AR with him to the killing  spree: A shotgun and two handguns were recovered.

Washington, D.C. has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country,  yet they did absolutely nothing to stop the killing. Regardless of this, right  on cue, politicians and anti-gun pundits demand more ‘gun-control’, disarming  law-abiding citizens and allowing killers to wrack up the body counts. We don’t  need more gun-control, we as Americans want our God-given right to  self-defense!

Read more:



Military lowering standards to qualify women for combat

1 Comment

This is from BizPac Review.

Lowering the physical requirements for women in combat is wrong.

Lives will be lost in combat because of the lack of physical strength

by women.

I would hope if I was wounded in combat the person in the foxhole

next to me  could drag me to safety.

Political Correctness running wild.

This is real life not some Bravo Serria movie with Demi Moore.



Photo Credit

Don’t look now but affirmative action is coming to the U.S. military as it considers different training for men and women.

Instead of “Army Strong,” perhaps the new motto should be “Army Fair.”

When former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the lifting of the ban on women serving in combat earlier this year, he said not everyone can meet the qualifications to be a combat soldier but everyone is entitled the opportunity, as reported by Fox News.

Since the decision to lift the ban, there has been a lot of debate about the physical requirements of serving in front-line positions, with concerns about lower standards being part of that discussion.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who supported the decision, spoke of this when he said the military, and particularly elite special forces units, should maintain their “rigorous physical standards.”

Six months later, we learn that the U.S. military is looking at ways to modify its training for women to help them qualify for direct ground combat roles in the infantry, tanks and special operations, according to the Washington Times.

The idea was proposed by Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., at a House Armed Services Committee hearing this week.

“To put in place a training regimen that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see,” she said.

Army Lt. Gen. Howard Bromberg, deputy chief of staff for personnel, appears to agree with Tsongas.

“We are looking at that, and we’re not looking at it just for the integration of women,” he testified. “We’re looking at it for the total soldier, because just as you have a 110-pound male who may lack some type of physiological capability or physical capability, he or she may both need to be trained differently.”

Lt. Gen. Robert Milstead Jr., deputy Marine Corps commandant for manpower, is also on board. While pitching for gender-segregated boot camp, he spoke of how men and women “need to be nurtured different.”

As it stands, all four women who’ve attempted to pass the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course have failed. The demanding 13-week course is considered to be among the toughest in the U.S. military.

And while much of today’s combat takes place at a distance, al-Qaida must be looking forward to meeting this new “nurtured” soldier up close and personal on the battlefield.

Apparently, “maximizing the success of women” is a greater priority for some than living and dying.

Of course, if you understand the progressive left, you could see this coming. Just as Obamacare is but a foot in the door that will lead to single payer, the announcement in January was just the beginning of the emasculation of the U.S. military.

Which leaves one to wonder if the final earthly thoughts of these new American soldiers, as they lay dying on the battlefield, will be to wish that there had been a little less gender equality within their unit.


Two Commentaries worth reading…

1 Comment

Hat Tip To Old NFO.


GEN Brady and ADM Lyons speak out on the current state of our military…

Niether gent is politically correct, they just call it as they see it…

First GEN Brady-

Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor. He is the author of “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam The Legend of Dust Off: America’s Battlefield Angels.”

As incompetence, deception, duplicity and dishonesty become the hall marks of the Obama administration, it is important that we not lose sight of the greatest danger posed beyond these serial scandals: the feminization, emasculation and dismantling of our military. The two most important elements of national survival are the media and the military; one keeps us free and the other keeps us secure. We know the media are failing ˆ God help us if the military does also. We may be able to fix the government in 2014. Fixing the military is more problematic.
Let‚s begin with Benghazi. It is incomprehensible that any commander, let alone the commander in chief, would go AWOL during a crisis such as Benghazi, but he was. In the midst of the massacre of our ambassador and three heroic Americans, President Obama was nowhere to be found. He did manage to surface, too late for the massacre, to meet a campaign commitment the next day. But, before retiring, we are told he turned the crisis over to his underlings, including the military. What we learned about our military leadership during that crisis should alarm all Americans.
The demise of our military of course begins with the commander in chief, but he can‚t do it alone. He has to have willing sycophants and he has had them in the civilian and military leadership at the Department of Defense. The indifference of the people and military inexperience in Congress are contributing factors. The military disasters are a form of gradualism. Look at the changes under Mr. Obama. We cannot focus on these changes enough.
Our military is suffering unprecedented rates of suicide and PTSD. Obama‚s sequestration will cut benefits to veterans as well as damage readiness. (There has been a 2000 percent increase in backlog for veteran assistance in four years!) We now have a quad-sexual military with all the health, readiness and moral issues that come with exalting sodomy. Sexual assault is at an all-time high. Women will be tasked to lead bayonet charges. As a result of the sex scandals, Congress is now looking to curtail the military‚s ability to discipline, another tribute to the lack of leadership in the military and lack of military understanding in Congress.
Billions of defense dollars are unaccounted for. Christianity is under military attack, and Bibles have been burned to appease Muslims. (References to God and Jesus are forbidden at Arlington, chaplains will be forced to perform homosexual „marriages,‰ and Bibles and religious item are forbidden to the wounded at Walter Reed, etc.)
We have a new doctrine for crisis: „Don‚t deploy forces into harm‚s way without knowing what‚s going on.‰ Therefore, no Normandy or Inchon. In other words, don‚t go until the crisis/massacre is over. Their default position is don‚t go, period. The military leadership, after the terrorist massacre at Fort Hood, outrageously lamented the effect it would have on diversity ˆ and equally outrageously labeled it workplace violence denying the victims and their families the benefits they deserve.
There have been unprecedented security leaks, and China is electronically in bed with us. They even lost the graves of our warriors at Arlington. I could go on, but it should be clear that all of the above is the result of a leader who knows not the difference between a corps and a corpse and is both indifferent to and unknowledgeable of military readiness. And as bad, the military leadership is complicit in these disasters. (As a further tribute to their ineptitude, they have actually considered combat-level medals for warriors not shooting and desk-bound computer operators, medals that were the laughingstock of veterans.)
But given that the president tasked the military to act in the Benghazi crisis, what did they do? Indefensibly, they did nothing, they did not even try! No obstacle, no doctrine, nothing can defend not trying, never mind the risk, to save fellow Americans. Were they under orders to sit on their aˆ and let their fellow Americans die? In my 34 years of military service involving many crises, I never knew of one without an after action report (AAR), in which each and every action was put under a microscope to identify those responsible for the results be they good or bad. Congress, the media, someone should demand the AAR on Benghazi. It must exist. Who ordered the stand down? Who said sit on your aˆ? Why no hearing on this?
Just as the way forward for America is a return to the morality and values of the past, so too must the military return to the readiness standards and common sense of the past. We can survive in a relatively valueless society ˆ but only with a strong and ready military. Sadly the military is mirroring society ˆ the goal of Mr. Obama and progressives ˆ and will soon be impotent. Once the progressives have a helpless military they no longer need to explain why they didn‚t go; they can say we are unable to go. Progress is not the path we are on; true progress is the path to our past. The other scandals may be more glamorous and outrageous (such as lying about Benghazi before the coffins of those massacred by terrorists, enemies‚ lists and assaults on the First Amendment) but what Mr. Obama is doing to our military is more grave.
ADM Lyons-
Washington Times
June 11, 2013
Pg. B3

Restoring Military Readiness

A professional fighting force, not diversity, must be the military’s priority

The impact of fighting two wars over the past decade has taken its toll on our military forces. They have been run hard and put away wet. Sequestration has only compounded the problem. Our military services are already reeling from previously approved $800 billion in defense cuts over the next decade and are now faced with $500 billion in additional budget cuts now that sequestration has been implemented.
All this means that we will have the smallest Army since prior to World War II. The Navy, with its anemic shipbuilding program, will most likely be left with the smallest fleet since prior to World War I. The U.S. Air Force will suffer a similar adverse impact. Selected aircraft squadrons from both the Air Force and the Navy have been ordered to stand down and not fly. It will take several months to restore their readiness.
Symbolic of the Navy’s demise are the five aircraft carriers that are currently moored at piers at the Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia for lack of operating and overhaul funds. Clearly, with the escalating civil war in Syria, one carrier battle group should be immediately deployed to the Mediterranean. Such a deployment would dramatically change the strategic equation and counter Russia’s deployment of 11 ships currently there.
The Obama administration’s draconian budget cuts are being made at a time when global instability is increasing. The Middle East continues in a state of turmoil, particularly with the ongoing civil war in Syria. However, the most destabilizing factor in the Middle East would be for Iran to achieve a nuclear-weapon capability. With China and North Korea’s help, they may now have all the necessary elements. In the Pacific, China continues with its massive military buildup. Its cyberwarfare attacks and penetration of our military-industrial complex has, at a minimum, reduced our technology advantage in any future confrontation. This is most serious since our technological advantage was always our force-multiplier.
The one constant that made our military the finest fighting force in the world was the dedication and professionalism of our personnel – our national treasure. The troops took pride in being recognized as the “best and brightest.” It made for high morale and solid unit cohesion. Professionalism was their No. 1 priority. Now with President Obama’s social engineering of our military forces, “diversity” has become the No. 1 priority. It is hard to comprehend how the promotion of the homosexual and feminist agendas contributes to unit integrity or improves combat readiness. Why, then, are these disruptive agendas being forced on our military, particularly when we are being challenged throughout the world? Fulfilling a political agenda is insufficient rationale to deliberately weaken our military forces and national security.
As he was tiptoeing out of the Pentagon, former Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta made his ill-advised and irresponsible endorsement of eliminating military women’s exemption from direct land combat battalions. Thirty years of studies and reports in the United States and the United Kingdom have provided more than sufficient empirical data that men and women are not physical equals nor interchangeable in all roles. There is no other nation in the world with a military force comparable to ours that assigns women in direct combat infantry land wars.
When the U.S. Marines conducted an online survey of active-duty personnel in 2012, it failed to show support for women in direct ground combat units. Regrettably, never asked was how would women assigned to infantry and special operations forces affect mission effectiveness? Research done by the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which studied the issue in depth in 1992, determined that a “voluntary” option for women to engage in close combat, but not for men, would not work. In a direct combat environment, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or worse, would end up causing fatalities to fellow troops.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that women’s exemption from direct ground combat missions somehow has contributed to the current rise in the sexual abuse we see in our military forces today. This makes no sense. Women are closer to combat today than ever before, but the rates of sexual assault and abuse are soaring with no end in sight.
The rescinding of the Clinton “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has come at a price. In Volume II of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office report, there is no change in “unwanted sexual contact” for women (32 percent in both 2010 and 2012), but an increase among men reporting “unwanted touching” from 31 percent in 2010 to 57 percent in 2012. It certainly calls into question the Department of Defense’s claims that repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been a complete success.
What’s most disturbing is the apparent acquiescence to these ill-conceived policies by our top military leadership. In life-and-death situations, you must have the first team in place. Mandates for diversity metrics are no substitute for proven combat effectiveness when engaging the enemy.
Our combat readiness in today’s world must be our first priority. Since our top military leadership is complicit in the administration’s social engineering of our military, Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibility to “provide for the common defense” and make policy for the armed forces. As a first order of business, Congress should reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S.military representative to the United Nations.
The question is, “What can we realistically do about the decline of our nation?”
“I” don’t have a good answer, because I don’t know what we can do to resolve the mess in Washington short of starting over…  And the dems have the illustrious 47% who will back them to keep getting their free cheese…
Comments, recommendations, ideas??? ANYTHING???
h/t JP and others


Obama threatens to veto religious freedom protection for military

Leave a comment

This is from BizPac Review.

This shows that beyond any doubt the Obama Regime has

declared war on Christians.

This is an outrage that must be stopped.

In spite of what Obama and the Liberals say America is a

Christian nation founded on Christian teachings.

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Ronald Reagan



The Obama administration has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 if it contains amendments introduced and approved by the House Armed Services Committee designed to protect the religious freedoms of American military service members.

The White House published its Statement of Administrative Policy on the bill in its current form, which includes the following objection, according to Breitbart News:

Expansion and Implementation of Protection of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members: The Administration strongly objects to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, “actions and speech” reflecting the “conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member.” By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.

Although the White House offers nothing to support its bald statement that the “provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order,” etc., they affirm that “…if the bill is presented to the President for approval in its current form, the President’s senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill.”

This is disturbing given the extent to which the military has attacked statements of religious faith lately.

A U.S. Army reserve unit recently labeled Catholics and evangelical Christians as religious extremists during an equal opportunity training brief.

Pentagon threatened soldiers who share faith with punishment up to and including court martial.

The Pentagon removed an Air Force video honoring first sergeants bewcause ir cxontained the name “God.”

A 25-year Army veteran master sergeant was excoriated by his superiors for sharing his religious belief in favor of traditional marriage.

An inspirational Air Force painting was removed from a base dining hall because it contained in small words, “Matthew 5:9” a reference to a biblical verse.

The examples continue to pour in, which prompted the amendment into the latest version of the NDAA.

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission Ken Blackwel told Breitbart News:

President Obama is waging a war on religion. He and Chuck Hagel are denying the most basic rights to those who put their lives on the line to protect all of our rights. It is shameful and appalling. I am confident that congressional leadership will show courage to stand up for our troops against this radical assault on religious liberty in the military.

Those we rely on to lay down their lives to protect our liberties and freedoms — including religious expression — should be allowed those same freedoms in the proper setting. To deny them less would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy.


Obama Desecrating the US Military’s Sacred POW Code of Conduct

Leave a comment

This is from Defender Of The Faith and Guardian Of Truth.

Will we have a military left after Obama gets done?


by Captain Joseph R. John, Retired USN

Forty years ago, President Nixon finally succeeded in having Secretary of State Henry Kissinger complete the negotiation for the repatriation of the Vietnam POWs from North Vietnam. On the weekend of May 23rd, for the last time, the surviving Vietnam POW’s solemnly celebrated the 40th anniversary of their release, at the Nixon Presidential Library.

If you have ever read any of the many books published, articles printed in newspapers, or read interviews given by Vietnam POW’s, you will understand that the common thread that helped get them through their very difficult period of captivity was their faith in God, their religious worship away from the eyes of their captors, and the support the Prisoner of War Code of Conduct that was inculcated in them.

Here’s how the Prisoner of War Code of Conduct, Article VI, reads:

“I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in theUnited States of America.”

American Experience | Return With Honor | Primary Sources

The US military tries to instill the Code of Conduct in all US military personnel to remind them of their “character and heritage,” and in order to emphasize to them that as American fighting men and women they have inner strengths to rely on, in face of the mental and physical abuses they will have to endure if they are ever captured. “Character” was emphasized in American’s youth at home each day by parents, by teachers in both public and parochial schools, by the leaders and coaches of the various organizations they belonged (such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, 4H, athletics, etc.), by religious leaders in the churches/synagogues they attended, by service academies where they were instilled with the Honor System/Honor Code and love of country, by boot camp where military indoctrination emphasized the service branch heritage and love of country, and by military leadership training programs for officer and noncoms.

While Character was being instilled in most Americans by these means, Barrack Obama’s character was developed, as he relates in his book “Dreams,” every day after school in Hawaii, by his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, the Secretary of the Communist Party USA. He attended school in Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro; and his character was further developed by his two roommates at Columbia who took him to Pakistan in the 1980′s to be indoctrinated in a philosophy that was not typically American.

Obama’s unvarnished “Character” is different from that of most of the US military personnel, most of whom were born and bred in America, and the true color of his “Character” has been revealed by his actions over the last four years. Most intelligent and forthright Americans realize that he has never said he loves this country or praised the heritage of the Republic; his actions speak louder than words.

By his actions (look at what he has done, not what he says), Obama has demonstrated that he doesn’t support the US Military Code of Conduct which instills in the American fighting man and women their faith in God and their love of the heritage of the United States of America. The Code of Conduct was developed to give US Prisoners of War (POW) the inner strength to believe in something bigger than themselves, even when they were being tortured or mentally abused by his captors (even after resisting, they may have been broken by such severe torture, but their love of country survived).

Instead of emphasizing the concepts of the US Military Code of Conduct to strengthen the faith of US military personnel, the Obama administration has been emphasizing Obama’s Social Experiment on Diversity, and has been forcing his radical Social Experiment on Diversity into regulations of the captive US military that must follow those regulations and policy directives issued by Obama’s civilian appointees at DoD. Those radical policies are damaging the Combat Effectiveness of the US Armed Forces.

Please review 15 of Obama’s policies or directives, listed below, that are overtly hostile toward Christians in the US Armed Forces. For four years the Obama administration has been trying to eliminate the influence of Christianity in the US Armed Forces, concepts that were first instilled in the US military culture by General George Washington in 1776, and it has given US military personnel the inner strength that sustained them in combat and in captivity.

Just before a combat operation, military personnel flock to the Chaplains for their blessing, or meditate quietly in their own solitude; when they become Prisoners of War, they lean on their faith and the Code of Conduct to give them strength. Obama’s Social Experiment on Diversity, outlined in new regulations, has been forced upon members of the US Armed Forces, military chaplains, and the civil service employees that support the US military programs. They have attempted to diminish the fundamental Judeo/Christian concepts that have been the foundation upon which the US Armed Forces was built to strengthen it for 238 years.


Aggressive anti-Christian actions by the Obama Administration are real, documented, and are escalating:

1. January 2010 — Department of Defense orders removal of tiny Bible references on military scopes and gun sights.

2. June 2011 — The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burials at National Cemetery.

3. August 2011 — The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory because it is based on a philosophy of St. Augustine.

4. September 2011 — Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of religious programs.

5. September 2011 — The Army issues guidelines to Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that no religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials) are to be given to the wounded.

6. November 2011 — The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child because it is run by Christians.

7. November 2011 — The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 for a Stonehenge-type worship center for pagans, druids, and witches.

8. February 2012 — The U.S. Military Academy disinvites decorated war hero LTG William “Jerry” Boykin, USA (Ret), and FRC Executive VP, because he is an outspoken Christian.

9. February 2012 — Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read archbishop’s letter from pulpit (Pilgrims fled England because they were prevented from free speech from pulpit)

10. May 2012 — Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex “marriages.”

11. June 2012 — Obama administration revokes the long-standing U.S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on military Bibles.

12. August 2012 — Lt. Col. Jack Rich, USA e-mails subordinates saying they should be on the lookout for people who share FRC’s values because they are not “Army Values.”

13. January 2013 — Obama announces his opposition to a provision in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act protecting the rights of conscience for military chaplains.

14. April 2013 — Officials briefing for U.S. Army Reservists states examples of “religious extremism” includes “Evangelical Christianity”, “Catholicism”, and “Islamic Jihadist Terrorism” in organizations like Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas.

15. May 2013 — The Pentagon meets with Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) who is trying to establish new rules which would restrict the religious freedom of Christian and Jewish military personnel (they shouldn’t have even given such a radical anti-Christian an audience).

On November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, a devout Muslim, Maj Nidal Malik Hasan, USA (A. K. A. “Abu Wali”), who had been communicating with Al Qaeda terrorist cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, in a series of 20 E-mails, shouted at the top of his lungs, “Allah Akbar”, and used two hand guns to kill 12 US military personnel, while wounding 31 US military and law enforcement personnel. It was a radical Islamic terrorist attack against American Christian military personnel executed on a US military base; Al Qaeda spokesman, Adam Gadahn, praised “Abu Wali” as a Mujahid Brother. The Obama administration through its spokesman, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, insisted it was not terrorism at all, but work place violence. The US military personnel who were killed and wounded that day, should have been awarded the Purple Heart Medal for coming under a military assault by a Islamic Terrorist and traitor. An attempt has been made for nearly 4 years to cover up this Islamic Terrorist assault perpetrated on US soil (like the failed Terrorist attacks on US soil including the failed bombing in Times Square, the Terrorist bombing at the Boston marathon, and the Al Qaeda Terrorist attack on US soil/the US Mission in Benghazi that killed 2 Navy SEAL’s). We will not remain compliant for another of the Obama administration’s cover ups; we will endeavor to continue to bring that Terrorist attack to the attention of the American people until those murdered and wounded US military personnel receive the Purple Heart Medals they so rightly deserve.


Captain Joseph R. John, a combat veteran, is a 1962 graduate of the United States Naval Academy who retired from the US Navy after a long and distinguished career. He currently is the President of the Combat Veterans Training Group and is the founder of the Combat Vets for Congress PAC.



Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Peace.

Why is the military targeting Christians?

Will these rules apply to Moose Slime’s?

I doubt it will apply to Moose Slime’s.




The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians–including chaplains–sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime–possibly resulting in imprisonment–for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)–whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:

It’s a matter of what do they mean by “proselytizing.” …I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”

FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 60,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.


The FRC petition has now exceeded more than 40,000 signatures at the time of this update.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty with the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.  



New Army Manual Tells Soldiers Not To Be Critical Of Taliban…Or Pedophilia

1 Comment

This is from Liberty News Network.

How far will Obama’s Muslim appeasement go?

What did you say about the Taliban? (Photo Credit:  isafmedia/Flickr)

                                        What did you say about the Taliban? (Photo Credit: isafmedia/Flickr)


Just because they’ll cut your head off with a dull knife is no reason to be so negative:

Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a  new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.

It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but a mainstream newspaper got a sneak preview and published an article that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame “American cultural ignorance.” The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. “Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence.”

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”

In other words, if you’re being killed by a member of the Afghanistan military or police force, you probably brought it on yourself.  Serves you right for being so critical of pedophilia.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: