Archive for the ‘Military and Veterans’ Category

U.S. Army “Terrorized” Port Angeles, Washington

July 14, 2013 2 comments

(Hat Tip JDear for the forward.  Thank You, Joni)


Army helicopters ‘terrorize’ Port Angeles area; military apologizes

PORT ANGELES – Army special-operations helicopters on a training exercise buzzed the Port Angeles area late Thursday night in an episode that the mayor says “terrorized my city.”

An Army official apologized Friday for the unannounced training mission.

Dozens of alarmed residents called police to ask what was going on and said the noise and lights panicked horses and other livestock.

“They terrorized my city,” Port Angeles Mayor Cherie Kidd said Friday.

“No one had any warning about the helicopters, no one said anything afterwards, and today city officials had to spend hours just trying to find out what had happened – who had invaded Port Angeles.”

She plans to meet Monday morning with Army Col. H. Charles “Chuck” Hodges Jr., garrison commander of Joint Base Fort Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, about 90 miles south of Port Angeles, where the special-operations helicopters are based.

“I want to hold people accountable for this so it doesn’t happen again,” Kidd said.

Hodges said Friday afternoon he had launched an investigation and was meeting with unit commanders at the base.

“I apologize, this is totally unacceptable,” he told the Peninsula Daily News.

“At the very least we should have notified local authorities of the exercise.”

Chinook helicopters used

The helicopters – Hodges said they were four CH-47 Chinooks, twin-engine, tandem rotor heavy-lift helicopters, “big, heavy machines, they make a lot of noise especially when they operate near water” – were over Port Angeles from about 11:15 p.m. to shortly before midnight Thursday.

Residents said they were awakened from their sleep, and that spotlights stabbed down from the low-flying helicopters into their backyards.

The helicopters also landed, then took off, from the small Port Angeles Coast Guard base on Ediz Hook, across Port Angeles Harbor from the downtown business area.

Deputy Police Chief Brian Smith said: “Our watch commander last night reported that we received ‘dozens of calls’ complaining about low-flying helicopters over the city.”

It took until about noon Friday when Clallam County Sheriff Bill Benedict – who made repeated calls to Puget Sound military bases – was finally able to determine that the helicopters belonged to the Army and had come from Fort Lewis-McChord.

Special forces

Army Maj. Michael Burns later told the PDN that the training exercise over Port Angeles and the surrounding area was by units of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Lewis-McChord and also included MH-60 Blackhawk attack helicopters.

Burns said the aviation unit is used to transport special forces units.

Interviewed by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., headquarters for the unit, Burns could not speak to many details of Thursday’s training mission, but said such operations typically last between two and six hours at a time.

He added that he could not say specifically why the Port Angeles area was chosen for a training mission, only that “the particular area just gave a different training environment for the pilots, something unfamiliar.”

“We do our best to try to avoid populated areas, but [with] those aircraft being so large and so loud, even if we’re not very low, it seems very loud,” Burns added.

Burns said specific law enforcement agencies in the area were not notified for Thursday’s training mission, explaining that such notification is not typically done for operations as short as a one-night exercise.

The aircraft used in training missions can also cover a wide range of territory during a single mission, Burns said, making notifying each individual agency difficult.

“With helicopters, we cover such a wide area, it’s tough to notify every agency,” Burns said.


If Nukes Are So Useless, Why Are Iran, North Korea, China and Russia Building Them So Fast?

TWG:  America, read the congressional record titled “Communist Goals For America“,  tell your children and grandchildren you’re sorry,  then bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. 


1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.


If Nukes Are So Useless, Why Are Iran, North Korea, China and Russia Building Them So Fast?

by Peter Huessy
January 29, 2013 at 4:00 am


Senator Hagel, while signing up to the timetable for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, also said in the 2009 Al Jazeera interview, that nuclear weapons can be abolished because they no longer need to play a traditional deterrent role. As part of this strategy, Hagel proposes to “de-alert” our weapons, making them unusable in a crisis. This raises the question of why any adversary would also volunteer to put its nuclear warheads in reserve and significantly delay its own ability to use such weapons, especially when doing so is largely unverifiable.

The “Global Zero” campaign to “zero out” all nuclear weapons is pressuring the US to set an example for the rest of the world to follow, by dramatically cutting its nuclear forces even further to a level not seen since the dawn of the nuclear age 60 years ago.

This cutback is on top of the already considerable 90% reduction — since the height of the Cold War in 1981 — in our deployed strategic nuclear forces, as well as a similarly significant reduction in our reserve stockpile and our tactical nuclear weapons.

In proposing a larger reduction, a logical question has arisen: What is the role, if any, of the nuclear weapons we will keep prior to their elimination? In short, what is the function of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era, now seen as the post-9/11 era and its concern about terrorism?

A little history is in order. The essence of the US triad of missiles on land, submarines at sea and bombers ready to fly is that it is virtually impossible to take all of these forces out in one quick, sudden unexpected strike by the bad guys, which would leave us “naked”, i.e., with no nukes left with which to deter or strike back.

The Global Zero forces have long wanted to eliminate the land based missiles — at the height of the Cold War we had 1050 such missiles on land spread over 7 states; we have 450 now over five states.

Global Zero wants to get rid of the land-based Minuteman missiles and rely primarily on our submarines, both to save money and to demonstrate that we are truly dedicated to “going toward” zero weapons.

But we only have two bases or ports for our submarines, one in Washington and one in Georgia. Those subs in port can be destroyed by a cruise missile attack. But those subs at sea, usually four, in their patrol areas, cannot now be found by any adversary so they can survive to fire back at any adversary who might strike the US first.

But our Navy leaders believe anti-submarine warfare technology may in a number of years make it easier to detect and find them. Thus, prudence dictates we continue to make the fleet as quiet and survivable as possible, as well as maintaining the insurance policy of our land-based Minuteman missiles to ensure we can retaliate if attacked. The cost of the Minuteman program annually is roughly $500 million in research, development and acquisition, a bargain at less than $1 out of every $7600 spent by Uncle Sam.

If an anti-submarine warfare breakthrough occurred, our submarines over time could be eliminated while underwater on patrol. Under those circumstances, we would not know what country had taken them out.

This would be a deadly serious crisis, because the US President would be faced with the prospects of the United States losing its nuclear deterrent. This entire dilemma, however, can be avoided simply with the expedient of the US keeping all of our Minuteman missiles in their silos sustained and modernized.

The next strategy proposed by Global Zero involves a degree of sleight of hand. After proposing that 450 submarine-based warheads would remain in our inventory, they propose that the same warheads be “de-alerted”. This would require making technical changes to the submarine missile-launchers. The submarine commander, upon receiving orders from the President to fire such weapons, would not be able to carry out such an order for upwards of seventy two hours or three days.

Since taking the missiles “off alert” is not verifiable, we would be hoping our adversaries did likewise. Instead of President Reagan’s policy of “Trust, but verify”, we would be in a new world of “Trust, don’t verify, and hope”.

Finally, the Global Zero advocates try to hide the weakness of their approach by proposing that if needed in a crisis, the submarines could add an additional 450 warheads to their missiles by returning to port and adding such warheads to their missiles from stockpiles stored nearby. The only problem is that, as experts have explained, such an endeavor would take many months. And the logical question arises, why would the “bad guys” wait around during a crisis for the US to re-arm?

In this context, the Global Zero campaign has now authored a proposal in which nuclear weapons would be eliminated by 2030 — with the US leading the way by eliminating much of its current Nuclear Triad of bombers, submarines and land-based missiles. Some number of weapons would remain throughout the period leading up to the elimination of the rest.

Here things get confusing. What would be the doctrine upon which the current nuclear forces would rely? If not available for use in a crisis, what would their purpose be? And if other nuclear armed nations kept their weapons ready to use, we would enter every crisis potentially unprepared to deter war.

One author of the report, former Senator Chuck Hagel, now nominated to be the new Defense Secretary, asserted in a 2009 Al Jazeera interview that the doctrine of mutual assured destruction or MAD, was no longer relevant although it had been the doctrine of the US and the Soviet Union for much of the Cold War. What then would take its place?

The report itself, primarily authored by the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General James Cartwright, has underscored that nuclear deterrence still needs to be maintained, and has proposed that the US keep some 450 warheads for that purpose, with an additional 450 warheads “in reserve” on a reduced force of ten submarines and 20 bombers.

But the Global Zero report also calls for these 450 reserve warheads to be removed from their bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and stored elsewhere, a change which would require many months before they could be brought back from storage and used.

Why any adversary would also volunteer to put its nuclear warheads in reserve and significantly delay its own ability to use such weapons remains unexplained — or what purpose would be served by bringing nuclear weapons to bear in a confrontation already underway for some time or possibly even already resolved?

Further, moving our deployed warheads off alert, so they could not be used for days or months after a crisis occurred, certainly would give incentives to other parties in a conflict to have nuclear weapons at the ready so they could be used to defeat everybody else.

There are adversaries of the US that have, or are urgently attempting to acquire, nuclear weapons; adversaries that include Russia, China and North Korea, with Iran now projected to have sufficient nuclear material for a weapon as early as 2014. Will all of these nuclear powers actually put aside their nuclear weapons, making them unusable in a crisis?

Any crisis could emerge involving any number of the current nine nuclear weapons states. In that light, the primary objective of the United States should be to ensure that no nuclear weapons be used, whether those weapons were to be used against the US and its allies or not. To do that, nuclear deterrence would be required. And such deterrence must be — and appear to be — both credible and stable. The Global Zero strategy is neither.

What then should a credible US nuclear policy look like? At a minimum, it should preserve nuclear stability, the guiding principal of which would be that during a crisis, the US would work to ensure that: (1) No nuclear weapons were used by anyone against anyone else especially while nuclear weapons remain in the arsenal of nations; and (2) That peace is preserved, and any aggression, even conventional, is avoided.

In that light, how do any of the Global Zero proposals make sense, especially in de-alerting those warheads that remain in our inventory while eliminating our ICBMs

Most problematic about the Global Zero strategy us that it relies upon verification measures — not yet identified — to preserve the peace in a non-nuclear world with many rogue states that have a strong propensity to cheat. In these circumstances, would war of any nature be less likely or more likely? Let’s look at four key issues.

1. Assuming the US, and its allies would not completely trust a commitment by Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan and others to get rid of their nuclear weapons, wouldn’t it require extremely intrusive inspections — including those made without notice — to adequately verify such an eradication, as even the proponents of such an agenda admit?

What happens, however, even if we reach such a hypothetical condition of zero nuclear weapons? Would the Global Zero proponents also tell us that with nuclear weapons no longer available, war between countries — including terrorist-sponsoring states and their terror allies — would go away? As General Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Council Adviser to President Bush, has asked: What part of the pre-nuclear era of World War I and World War II are folks hoping we go back to?

As conventional war would still be possible between nations — and without nuclear deterrence, possibly even more likely — wouldn’t the benefit of getting nuclear weapons first, on the sly, be of enormous strategic advantage to a country seeking to commit aggression against another? Would verification be so foolproof that we could be certain such a surprise would not happen?

If North Korea were to invade South Korea solely with conventional forces — even unsuccessfully — would not South Korea be sorely tempted to secure nuclear weapons to ensure that such an attack would never happen again? Or what about a conflict between India and China, or Pakistan and India, or Iran and Turkey? Would nuclear weapons stay out of the geostrategic equation for long?

A nuclear-free world would also therefore be a world where very quickly there would be a rush to rearm, as the likely outcome, or attempted prevention, of any perceived potential conflict. The world would soon be awash in aspiring nuclear powers with the attendant instability this situation would entail with few “rules of the road” in operation.

2. Some advocates of nuclear zero also assert that nuclear weapons currently serve no usefully military purpose, in that they cannot be used for any militarily useful goal, and thus can safely be eliminated.

A recent essay by Ward Wilson, cited as further evidence that nuclear weapons have never been useful and thus can now safely be abolished, asserts that the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II not because of the US use of nuclear weapons, but because the Soviet Union entered the war in early August 1945.

General Larry Welch, the former US Air Force Chief of Staff and Commander of the Strategic Command at the height of the Cold War, and one of the key authors of the initial US effort to reduce nuclear weapons to lower but more stable numbers, found such a proposition “at odds with the facts, even at odds with the information presented in Wilson’s article.”

“The Japanese emperor,” Welch wrote me, “was the only authority in Japan to overrule the military and declare an end to the war. The use of nuclear weapons against Japan gave him the necessary leverage to surrender and to make it stick. … The idea that the Soviets’ entry into the war did the trick is not supported by any understanding of the facts at the time.” He added, “The Russians had no significant capability facing Japan, and no naval capability. Their forces were concentrated in the European theater.”

Welch also noted that, “The overwhelming evidence was that a US and allied invasion of Japan would have cost America 500,000 to 1,000,000 military casualties and 1-2 million subsequent Japanese casualties. After the war, we discovered very large caches of war material being readied to fight just such an invasion.”

Wilson’s claim that nuclear weapons had no role in the peace maintained throughout the Cold War – is “devoid of supportable rationales” said Welch.

“The very fact,” Welch wrote, “that there was no armed conflict between two superpowers armed to the teeth, facing each other across an artificial border, is de facto evidence that nuclear weapons served a military purpose unparalleled in human history —-they played a major role in avoiding war for an extended period between two heavily armed adversaries, an accomplishment, let me emphasize again, largely unparalleled in human history.”

The “whole point of deterrence was never to use these weapons” he continued. “The idea that the use of such weapons was wholly irrational and would not accomplish one’s war aims was precisely the point of deterrence; the use of such weapons was so horrible to contemplate, their use by our adversaries was deterred.”

3. The next issue is whether nuclear weapons serve no further purpose. “If nuclear weapons are so useless as he asserts,” Welch continued, “why are rogue states and others seeking to acquire them?”

If nuclear weapons really serve no purpose, then it makes sense for the US unilaterally to take the lead and be the first to disarm: have the US get rid of its nuclear weapons unilaterally, before any of our adversaries do as well?

If, however, as even global zero advocates concede, nuclear deterrence remains essential, then the argument should be about what is needed for both strategic deterrence and for maintaining strategic stability.

In that regard, reference to the one treaty now in force that calls for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons would be useful. The whole purpose of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] was to reduce those nations with nuclear weapons, to stop proliferation and eventually reduce and then eliminate nuclear weapons.

The NPT, signed in 1968 and entering into force in 1970, also called for general disarmament of conventional forces as part and parcel of any such nuclear disarmament. The US nuclear umbrella was widely seen during the Cold War as keeping the peace in Central Europe, preventing a superior Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact conventional capability from being used on the continent. The US was hardly ready to give up its nuclear deterrent in Europe and leave in place a vastly superior Soviet conventional capability facing NATO across the Fulda Gap. Even today, leaders of countries from Germany, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, for example, credit the US nuclear umbrella for forestalling major proliferation pressures among US allies.

Nuclear weapons, then, have served a major purpose: stopping the very proliferation which the Global Zero campaign claims is one of its chief concerns. But with the removal of the US deterrent umbrella, including the remaining tactical nuclear weapons the US has in Europe,, proliferation will only be encouraged.

Proponents of Global Zero probably have to make up their minds: do or do not nuclear weapons give whoever possesses them a decided advantage in strategic affairs? If they do give such an advantage, pursuing Global Zero could actually be an unfortunate prelude to Global Proliferation, as nations seek to match or overtake smaller and smaller US nuclear forces. Global Zero could also lead to a world where just a handful of such weapons could obliterate other powers shortly after Global Zero had been reached. Again, a rush to rearm would result.

4. A key part of the Global Zero agenda is to “de-alert” the weapons of the United States, and implicitly those of Russia as well. This has sometimes been described as taking our warheads off of their missiles or removing them from bombers, then storing them separately from the platforms from which they would be launched, or delaying the time by which warheads on their respective missiles could be launched.

This has the purpose of not allowing nuclear weapons to be used for up to 72 hours after they have been de-alerted, and months for submarine-based weapons stored ashore. The first action cannot be verified and the latter takes so much time as to have no impact on a crisis or conflict already erupted. Thus, re-alerting and reconstituting our submarine force, for instance, would be a task taking not just days but in some instances months.

The first thing wrong with such a proposal is that it is, in large part, not verifiable. The second thing wrong is that the adversary’s weapons could surreptitiously be “re-alerted.” In a crisis, there would be the very same rush to rearm, which the very instability that the Global Zero push for no nuclear weapons is supposed to prevent.

Global Zero’s recommendations would therefore produce the likelihood that nuclear weapons would be used against us and our allies. We would not cheat, but the other side well could.


The most worrisome part of the Global Zero agenda is its proposal to dismantle unilaterally most of our current stabilizing nuclear deterrent. Cartwright and Hagel both propose to eliminate our 450 land based missiles and most of our bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and then rely almost entirely on our submarines.

This may sound attractive but it is not. Our submarines are in two ports, in Georgia and Washington. A certain number (four) of these 12 Trident boats are, on an ongoing basis at sea, patrolling within their pre-assigned boxes. Some boats remain in port, while others transit from port to patrol area. They are considered highly survivable out at sea as an assured second-strike retaliatory capability. The submarines place no pressure on a President in a crisis to cross the threshold and use nuclear weapons.

According to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the highest ranking Naval Officer in the US, the quest by our adversaries to develop an underwater, or anti-submarine warfare [ASW] capability, is high on the list of his most worrisome possible future developments.

If acquired, this would put at risk our submarines out at sea, where they could be destroyed by underwater torpedoes — with the US totally blind as to which nation might have carried out such an attack. Over time, our fleet could be targeted or eliminated, and with it our entire nuclear deterrent capability.

Today, while our submarines remain safe as they patrol at sea, we still maintain 450 Minuteman missiles in silos in the ground spread over hundreds of thousands of square miles in five states as a key insurance policy. To take out the Minuteman silos would require the “bad guys” to launch two warheads at each silo, which would require a massive attack. But even if all of our missiles in their silos did not survive–highly unlikely–our submarines at sea could retaliate. Thus any adversary would face the daunting task of simultaneously taking out our submarines in port and at sea as well as our land based missiles. Given the different flight times required to take out each element of our Triad, we would have sufficient warning of an attack and be able to strike back but only with all three Triad legs in place and sustained.

The presence today of 450 Minuteman missile silos spread over five states thus makes a pre-emptive attack on the US non-credible. Minuteman is thus a critically important strategic insurance policy, as is each element of our Triad. In a crisis, the bad guys know they cannot eliminate our ability to strike back , if necessary, with nuclear weapons. This maintains the strategic balance where no side is tempted to go first with nuclear weapons. That is what deterrence has to entail.

If the advocates of Global Zero really believed that relying primarily on our submarines made sense, they would not have admitted, as they did, that beyond 2040 an ASW or anti-submarine warfare breakthrough could occur that would put our entire underwater deterrent in fatal jeopardy.

Given the proposal to eliminate the Triad now, what would be the insurance policy upon which the US would rely to keep our needed deterrent if an ASW breakthrough occurred before 2040? The proponents of eliminating our Triad are either betting that our adversaries will not achieve any ASW breakthrough before then, or they are assuming that a lot of nuclear-armed lions will be getting along well with a lot of de-nuclearized lambs.

To claim the US deterrent is safe — except for a technological breakthrough — is less than prudent. Obviously a technological breakthrough, of which the US might not be aware, would alter the strategic balance, dramatically shifting the “correlation of forces” toward a nation which believed that eliminating the US nuclear arsenal would be to its advantage militarily and politically.

The proposal to eliminate the Triad brings with it — as with other proposals by the people of Global Zero — not peace, but a heightened geostrategic instability. Such a posture as Global Zero advocates would only encourage nuclear powers to seek to eliminate the US nuclear capability, while brandishing their own nuclear weapons to secure their own objectives. The use of nuclear weapons and planned aggression by an adversary may indeed become even more likely, and increase the likelihood that nuclear weapons might be used by someone other than the US in a crisis.

Global Zero would actually create the incentive for nations to bring nuclear weapons secretly back into their inventory; such weapons would once again become the “coin of the realm,” sought by rogue state bullies as the ultimate weapon with which to secure their often totalitarian goals.

Tyrants and nations would rush to impose their will, and with it the loss of our liberty previously guaranteed by a nuclear deterrent, now removed.



Retired U.S. Army Captain Comes Out Against DHS Threat of War Against American Citizens.

March 24, 2013 2 comments

TWG: Those evil beasts had better come up with a response to this soon.  America is headed into the bloodiest, most violent war this world has ever seen.  I suggest you take notes and keep track of who is supporting this treason against America and Her Citizens

We, The People DEMAND DHS  immediately surrender these weapons, tanks and ammunition to our Department of Defense.

It does not take a tempest prognosticator to see exactly what this horrid regime has in store for us.


By  Captain Terry M. Hestilow

March 24, 2013

(As posted on Facebook Friday)

CaptainTerry Hestilow


Dear friends, the following is a copy of my correspondence with Senator Cornyn concerning the arming of the DHS for war against the citizens of our nation.  You are each encouraged to copy and properly amend this letter to send to your own senators and members of the U.S. House.  Further, I am somewhat overwhelmed at the response to my posts leading up to this letter on this issue.  At this point almost 3,000 of you have shared my original post, I have 994 new friends requests, 61 messages, and 70 new comments to process.  Please be patient with me and pray that this window of communication remains open to all of us as we respond to this threat against our Constitution and our people.  I am awed by you, by your positive response, and your wonderful support.  We each have a role to play in standing against this present tyranny.  Part of that proper response is sending them a letter like this from YOU, and following it up to make sure it remains a “hot button” issue that must be resolved.  God bless you as you honor your oaths and your obligations as citizens of this free nation.  May we once again know honorable leadership and peace at home.  With all sincerity and respect–Resolved, Captain Terry M. Hestilow, United States Army, Retired.


The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas

United States Senate

517 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

Re:  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.

Dear Senator Cornyn,

It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America.  To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.

Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

The Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.

This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens!  This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America!  If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years.  We have no choice if we honor our oaths.

The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD).  Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible.  One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation.  The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power.  We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!

Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts.  We stand today at a cross-road.  Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy?  Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home.  You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home.  We are counting upon you.  We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.

I know that this letter demands much of you.  We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office.  We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.

We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!


Captain Terry M. Hestilow

United States Army, Retired

Fort Worth, Texas

March 23, 2013

As America Burns, obama Regime Redistributing Even More Dollars To islamic Terrorists

March 23, 2013 2 comments

Hat tip Mantenga for the forward.  Thank You, Mantenga.
In addition to the M1 tank fleets, F16 Fighter Squadrons, High Powered Weapons, military training and BILLION$ the obama regime is redistributing to their islamic terrorist pals, we have even MORE money being shuffled out while our own people are suffering.  Our Veterans have lost benefits, our air traffic control towers shut down, our schools shut down and thousands of dangerous illegal alien criminals being released from prisons, along with a plethora of budgetary cuts in other critical areas.

obama’s Dept of Foreign affairs have announced that they have awarded the Palestinian terrorists another $500 MILLION


$200MILLION from this years budget will be handed over as direct aid to the Palestinian terrorists.

The money has been released to coincide with Obama’s visit to the Middle East.

As if that wasn’t enough he also gave $200 MILLION to Jordan.

(Keep an eye on Jordan.  The obama regime will topple them next in order to continue installing their islamic caliphate they so desperately need. )

Of course, obama’s propaganda whores wouldn’t think of disclosing this TREASON to the American people.  We have to get the news from other Nations.  Thank God there are bloggers out here to share this information.

Clearly, America’s laws against TREASON have been eliminated.


The entire world is either laughing at us or crying for us.


I am so ashamed to be an American today.  This Nation is full of idiots, created by the so-called “educators” we’ve allowed to raise our youth into nothing more than glassy eyed sheeple, advocating for their own serfdom and for the death of this once great Nation.   And the common core scheme will lock this down to perpetuity, with nary a whimper from “caring parents”.


The “educators” continue to churn these idiots out by the millions into our society.   One does not need a tempest prognosticator to see where we’re headed.


If you haven’t already, say your goodbye’s to America as you know it.  We will soon see the bloodiest, most violent war this world has ever seen.  God help us all.  We’re finished.


And we deserve nothing more. 

Shame on us.




0bama Now Global Head of Al-Qaeda

Will President order drone strike on White House?

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
March 21, 2013

President Barack Obama is now the global head of Al-Qaeda – bankrolling, arming and equipping terrorists around the world in order to achieve his administration’s geopolitical objectives – while simultaneously invoking the threat of terrorists domestically to destroy the bill of rights.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Since it has now been established that those merely suspected of engaging in terrorism are subject to targeted drone strikes, under the terms of his own prosecution of the war on terror, Obama must immediately order a drone strike on the White House.

The administration has sent nearly half a billion dollars ($365 million plus another $60 million) and is now using US Special Forces to train militants in Syria who have pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda and who continue to carry out grisly beheadingsterrorist bombings targeting innocent civilians and chemical weapons attacks against women and children.

These same militants, backed not only by the US but by every major NATO power, have repeatedly voiced their hatred for and intention to destroy America, as they ransack Christian churchesburn US flags, chant anti-American slogans and sing the praises of Osama Bin Laden while glorifying the 9/11 attacks.

As the New York Times reported, these very same terrorists killed U.S. troops in Iraq and yet western backing for the insurgency against Bashar Al-Assad has enabled violent extremists to seize power in Syria.

As multiple reports now confirm, Jabhat al-Nusra, the main Al-Qaeda group in Syria, is now commanding rebels and is engaged in “the heaviest frontline fighting” in Syria. As the London Guardian reported, rebels in Syria are admittedly being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists, who meet with them “every day” and train them how to make bombs. The top 29 Syrian opposition groups have all sworn allegiance to Jabhat al-Nusra. Sheik Moaz al Khatib, head of the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, has also publicly affirmed his support for the terrorist group.

These same terrorists have also vowed to attack the United States once they are finished in Syria, while proclaiming their desire to see the Al-Qaeda flag flying over the White House.

In addition, while Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” have been characterized as terrorists by their own government, US citizens who openly take up arms to join with terrorists in Libya and Syria are allowed to fly around the world with total impunity.

In supporting Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria as part of the effort to impose regime change, the Obama administration is following the same disastrous policy it pursued in Libya, backing the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which also killed U.S. troops in Iraq, to overthrow Gaddafi.

That led to a country ruled by thugs who have rounded up, tortured and executed thousands of black Libyans. It also led to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, which was carried out by some of the very same LIFG terrorists the United States had backed just a year previously.

After the overthrow of Gaddafi, NATO powers aided in airlifting LIFG militants into Syria to continue the fight to impose Sharia law across the region.

Given all this, it’s abundantly clear that the Obama administration has easily outstripped other targets of drone strikes in its zeal to support terrorism around the world.

American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike simply for producing propaganda videos and communicating with accused terrorists. His 16-year-old son was similarly slaughtered for merely sharing his father’s surname. Other American citizens like John Walker Lindh were imprisoned and tortured in Guantanamo Bay for fighting with the Taliban.

And yet, as Afghan President Hamid Karzai made clear last week, the Obama administration is now colluding with the Taliban while the group carries out suicide bombings in the “service of America.”

By backing terrorists in Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria, Barack Obama has carved out a role as the global head of Al-Qaeda. Wherever on the map his administration wants to dominate geopolitically, Al-Qaeda terrorists flood in to to the dirty work – and it’s all paid for with your tax dollars.

By ordering a drone strike on the White House, Obama would be targeting the primary source now responsible for most of the world’s global terrorism – his own administration.


Afghanistan: U.S. Government Setting Up Our Troops To Die

March 19, 2013 2 comments

This video is jaw dropping.  Clearly, our troops are in serious peril over there, set up by their very own leaders.  These “leaders” are letting them die.   Our Men and Women serving over there are nothing more than pawns to this horrid regime.

Hat Tip @BWSchank for the forward. Thank You


“I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.” ~Major General Smedley Darlington Butler




obama’s muslim brotherhood TERRORISTS in Syria

March 15, 2013 3 comments

RECOMMENDED READING: “How The Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution”

TWG: The obama regime is redistributing BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars, M1A1 tanks, squadrons of F16’s, small arms, rockets and training PROVIDED BY OUR OWN MILITARY TROOPS, to these TERRORISTS.

Apparently, 50% of America is in a coma.  This is what USED to be called “Aiding and abetting the enemies of America”  Aka — TREASON.


Hassan Hassan, an editorial writer for the United Arab Emirates-based National, has written an article titled “How the Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution.” The article begins: BY HASSAN HASSAN | MARCH 13, 2013 No one in Syria expected the anti-regime uprising to last this long or be this deadly, but after around 70,000 dead, 1 million […]

obama Regime Declares War On Our Military

TWG:  You can also review a list of obama’s RELENTLESS efforts to keep our Military members from voting.  He’s done nothing but give them both of his middle fingers since he usurped the White House.  Why would ANY Military member & Veteran support that beast after what he’s done to them?

In addition to the article posted below, you can view the lengthy list of Military Voter Suppression and Voting Fraud efforts committed by obama and his thugs here:

As the obama regime redistributes BILLION$ in American Taxpayer funds to their muslim brotherhood and other islamic terrorist groups, they’re sticking it to our Military and Veterans.   And let’s not forget the squadrons of F16 fighter jets, the hundreds of M1 Tanks and other weapons and training to their islamic terrorist pals WHO ARE KILLING OUR TROOPS.  This regime has demonstrated, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, with whom and with WHAT their allegiance lies.  Here’s a hint…. it’s NOT with our Military Members, our Veterans, our Children, our Families and the future for America and Her Citizens.



Obama ‘declares war’ on U.S. military

Take a look at alarming slough of presidential actions

America’s men and women in uniform – many of whom have risked their lives in service to their country – are now being stripped of once-guaranteed college benefits as the Obama administration seeks to ensure citizens feel the pain of its loss in the sequester battle.

It’s just the latest move in a series of Obama administration actions that have chipped away at the U.S. military’s size, strength and benefits structure – and drastically changed the face of the most powerful fighting force in the world.

The U.S. Army, Air Force and Marine Corps have now halted their tuition assistance programs after across-the-board federal spending cuts went into effect March 1. The suspension applies to all components, including Reserve and National Guard personnel on active-duty orders. The U.S. Navy is also expected to deliver a similar announcement soon. The cuts do not affect G.I. Bill benefits.





Can Feds Bulldoze State Constitutional Protections?

L to R Nick Dranias, attorney for Goldwater Institute; Gary Marbut; Quentin Rhoades, attorney for Marbut, MSSA

In a courtroom gun fight that has the potential to disrupt many of Barack Obama’s plans for national gun lists, laws and limits, attorneys have told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the U.S. Constitution does not give Washington unlimited authority to bulldoze over state efforts to protect the constitutional rights of their citizens.

At issue is the years-old Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which was argued before the appeals court in a special session in Portland, Ore.

The law simply says firearms made, sold and kept in Montana are not subject to federal interstate commerce regulations.

Attorney Nick Dranias, who represented the amicus parties of the Goldwater Institute and others in the arguments, said the case should be returned to the lower court for discovery and development of evidence, because it is a case of first impression and the lower courts dismissed it without that opportunity.

He asked the judges to remember that the federal government was created by the states and that the states granted certain limited powers to the federal government. Where those rights were not granted to Washington, the states’ people retain all rights….


Army, Marine Corps Cancel Their Tuition Assistance Programs …But Illegal Aliens to Receive Financial Aid

Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, March 9, 2013, 9:28 PM


It’s an Obama world.
Due to the sequester (proposed by the White House) the Obama administration will cancel tuition reimbursement for soldiers and Marines.
US marines
It’s Barack Obama’s special way of saying, “Thanks for serving.”






%d bloggers like this: