budbromley

I rarely if ever find difference with or object to the opinions of  Dr. Charles Krauthammer.  However, his justification of America’s ongoing, undeclared drone wars and the killing of innocent civilians is immoral, ethically wrong and bad military strategy.  Here’s why.

The foundation of my position on drones, secrecy and transparency is best exemplified by Thomas Jefferson’s statement: ““Democracy demands an intelligent and informed electorate.”  How can citizens in a democracy be intelligent and informed, and responsible as they are for control and election of the government, if the government is protecting itself and hiding its actions with secrets and executive privilege?

Dr. Krauthammer justifies Obama’s drone wars, including civilian deaths in this article:  http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/15/krauthammer-in-defense-of-obamas-drone-war/

Dr. Krauthammer uses Anwar al-Awlaki as an example of a terrorist killed by Obama.  Al Awlaki was killed by an Obama=approved drone attack in Yemen, and so I will use the same example.

Undeclared drone wars are categorically, black and white, wrong for America because they kill innocent civilians and there is a practical way to prevent terrorist attacks in America without these drone attacks.  Militarily, America’s ongoing drone wars are a wrong-headed, counter-productive strategy which is exponentially increasing the number of terrorists even while it kills the supposed terrorists leaders.  As a result of the civilian deaths and the obvious terror of drones flying overhead, anger against America is growing exponentially among the civilian population.  But this civilian population is the only real hope of ever eradicating terrorism as a strategy of radical Islamic jihad.  As a practical matter, America cannot police the world with drones and blow up terrorists wherever they may hide.

Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born, a U.S. citizen, and earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University and an M.A. in Education Leadership from San Diego State University.  He was an al Qaeda terrorist and self-acknowledged enemy of America.  He was on Obama’s approved hit list for 17 months.  He was killed by an Obama-authorized drone strike, the second attempt, on September 30, 2011.  His 16 year old son was killed two weeks later in another drone strike.  On October 14, 2011, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki [the son] was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Yemen along with a group of his teenage friends while eating dinner under the moonlight.

Before you read further, listen and watch Anwar al-Awlaki in this troubling PBS video:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ofg2BacIM

Anwar al-Awlaki openly espoused violent jihad against America and recruited others to that role.

FBI suspects al-Awlaki, “could have bought air tickets for three of the 9/11 hijackers before the attacks.”

“Two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the FBI knew that al-Awlaki had used his Visa credit card to buy flights for Mohammed Atta, their ringleader, and two other hijackers, one internal document states.”

“Yet in February 2002, just four months later, al-Awlaki was invited to a dinner held at the Pentagon as part of the military’s “outreach to the Muslim community” in the aftermath of the attacks.”  This is convincing evidence of government incompetence.

In 2001, al-Awlaki presided at the funeral of the father of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008–2009 before the Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29 others in November 2009 in the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.

“Another document details how al-Awlaqi was detained and questioned at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport in October 2002, under an arrest warrant for passport fraud – a crime carrying a potential 10-year sentence.  However, the FBI ordered his release, allowing him to fly to Washington, DC, before eventually returning to Yemen.”

“Previously released documents showed that al-Awlaki was detained by US authorities a further two times in 2006 and 2007, both times again being released for undisclosed reasons.”  Another indictment of U.S. government incompetence.

“Al-Awlaki is also said to have directed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the British-educated “pants bomber” who attempted to bring down a packed commercial jet bound for Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.”

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, the pressure group that secured the release of the documents [by filing suit under the Freedom of Information Act], said they “further confirm disturbing dereliction by our national security establishment”.

“These and other documents leave little doubt that al-Awlaki had something to do with 9/11 and violated the law,” said Mr Fitton.”

“Yet this terrorist was feted at the Pentagon and given the proverbial ‘get out of jail free card’ by law enforcement – with deadly consequences.”

“In 2000, [Esam] Omeish personally hired … Anwar al-Awlaki to be the imam of Falls Church, VA, Dar al-Hijrah mosque [translates to ‘land of migration’].  According to IPT [Investigative Project on Terrorism] analysis, more terrorists have been linked to Dar al-Hijrah since 9/11 than to any other mosque in America.” The Saudi-backed North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) purchased the mosque’s grounds on June 19, 1983.  The current building, on a 3.4 acre plot was finished for $5 million in 1991 ($8,531,639 today) with financial help from the Saudi Embassy’s Islamic Affairs Department.”

…“Esam Omeish, former head of the Muslim Brotherhood-created Muslim American Society, visited the White House three times.”

“Omeish has continued visiting the White House even after the kill order on Al-Awlaki and even after Al-Awlaki’s death, as recently as March of this year [2012.]  Omeish heads the Libyan Emergency Taskforce and it would be interesting to know that impact this notorious terrorist supporter had on Obama’s Libyan policy.”

“Then there’s Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR’s Los Angeles office, who, “publicly defended Palestinian terror attacks in comments before Muslim students at the University of California – Los Angeles, saying that terrorists were exercising their “legitimate right” to defend themselves against Israeli occupation.””

“And Muzammil Siddiqi, a former head of Islamic Society of North America, who “supported laws in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.””

And…

“Hatem Abudayyeh – executive director of the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network, founded by Rashid Khalidi, a friend of President Obama. Abudayyeh has been under criminal investigation at least since September 2010, when FBI agents raided his home and office in connection with a terror-support probe. “

Documents received by a Freedom of Information request revealed that al-Awlaki “had ties to 26 terrorism cases and was described by the United States as head of the terror network’s most effective and lethal franchise.  The documents uncovered indicated he had been held for at least eight months between late 2006 and mid 2007.”

“About six months before … Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in Yemen… U.S. State Department officials appear to have instructed the U.S. Embassy in Yemen to invite” him “to come to the embassy to receive “an important letter regarding [his] U.S. passport.”

“Post is to hold and retain the revocation letter and send a separate letter to Mr. Aulaqi informing him that there is an importatnt [sic] letter for him at post regarding his U.S. passport,” the march 24, 2011 cable said.  “The department’s action is based upon the determination by the secretary that Mr. Aulaqi’s activities abroad are causing and/or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.”

“It’s unclear from the documents whether the embassy ever actually sought to contact Anwar Al-Awlaki or succeeded in doing so. It’s possible that the attempt to reach out to Al-Awlaki was part of an internal effort by the Obama Administration to provide a form of due process to U.S. citizens targeted for the use of deadly force. Some of the documents refer to classified discussions about the passport revocation. Such a notice, if delivered, would put Al-Awlaki on official notice that the U.S. Government wanted to talk to him.”

“However, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the effort bizarre.”

“The idea of inviting al-Aulaqi – a known terrorist – to our embassy in Yemen in order to revoke his passport is beyond belief,” Fitton said in a statement.”

The above is clear and sufficient evidence of the need for transparent profiling, and action based on those public profiles.  The multiple examples of incompetency by government shows that the pervasive use of secrecy by the government endangers lives, reduces the ability of citizens to protect themselves, and prevents citizens from intelligently controlling and electing their government.

President Obama said, “The death of al-Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Furthermore, this success is a tribute to our intelligence community, and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces, who have worked closely with the United States over the course of several years.”

Obama continued, “Awlaki and his organization have been directly responsible for the deaths of many Yemeni citizens. His hateful ideology — and targeting of innocent civilians — has been rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, and people of all faiths. And he has met his demise because the government and the people of Yemen have joined the international community in a common effort against Al Qaeda.”

I submit to you that this chain of events, actions and inactions, culminating in the assassination of al-Awaki by drone along with the assassination of his teenage son and the deaths of the son’s friends and innocent civilians is more than sufficient evidence of the incompetence, command negligence and dereliction of duty by President Obama, and the U.S. intelligence community, and dereliction of duty by the FBI and federal law enforcement under both the Obama and Bush administrations.  The terrorist al-Awlaki was profiled and was arrested and should have been faced trial in the United States.  Al-Awlaki’s profile was not made public and the terrorist was released.  The public was endangered by the government’s negligence.  Many innocent people died.

Also, arguably, the 13 people who died at Ft.Hood probably would not have died had al-Awlaki been arrested, tried and convicted for his connection to the events of 9-11-2001.  The deaths at Ft.Hood certainly would have been prevented if Army psychologist Hasan had been profiled and arrested or removed from the military.

I submit to you that profiling and arrest and trial of terrorists in the United States is the best way, the moral way, to eradicate terrorism.  Doing so will help immensely to recoup the moral standing of America in the world.  American terror in the skies and the resulting deaths of innocent people from America’s undeclared drone wars should be stopped.  The drone war is unnecessary.  The public will have to get over its politically correct, guilt-ridden concerns about profiling and judging the behavior of others.  The occasional overly aggressive search of an individual fitting the profile of a terrorist is a very small price indeed compared to the deaths of innocent civilians perpetrated in our name by our President and the counter-productive terror and anger among the grieving families.

Dr. Krauthammer’s attempt to justify drone killing of innocents is wrong.  He claims innocent deaths by drones is comparable to killing of civilians in Germany by bombings in WWII and North Vietnam.  These three wars are all different.  WWII was a war legally declared by Congress, and it was a symmetric war between virtually the entire United States including its civilians and industries as well as the government (and other allied countries’ civilians, industries and governments) against Germany and Japan including the civilians, industries and governments of Germany and Japan.  All of America and its allies, Germany and Japan and their allies knew these countries were in all out war and most citizens participated in the war one way or another.  The drone war is killing truly innocent people, and the terrorists are intentionally hiding among innocent people.

Opposite to WWII, America’s drone war is part of a legally undeclared, asymmetric war secretly waged by our government against a relatively small group of radical Islamists who are spread over many countries.  Parts of the war have been waged openly by America and its allies in two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), but today the secret drone war is ongoing in several other countries, for example, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen.  Most of the civilians, almost all industries and almost all of the governments in these countries do not support the radical Islamists.  But, these innocent people in these countries are living in terror of death by American drones.

The small group of radical Islamists has been secretly supported in their terrorism and violence by several governments, mostly Middle Eastern Islamic tyrannies, but sometimes also secretly supported by the America and its allies.  These secrets are killing innocent Americans and citizens of other counties.

America probably created Al Qaeda, perhaps accidentally, by its secret supply of weapons (e.g. ground to air missiles), intelligence and training to the Mujahedeen during the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan.  The name Al Qaeda did not appear until after the Soviet Union had left Afghanistan.  After the Soviets left, the radical militant group (now called Al Qaeda) turned against the Americans, wanting America out of Afghanistan and the Middle East.  History records that actions of the American government and its allies and industries helped build the early pre-war fascist state in Germany and Imperial Japan, but this was not done in secret and WWII was not a proxy war.

In eye-opening parallel to the American proxy war with the Soviet Union through the Mujahideen, followed by the Al Qaeda anti-American reaction in post-Soviet Afghanistan, America once again secretly armed Al Qaeda-affiliated militants in Benghazi Libya, and then after Gaddafi’s government was overthrown in Libya, the Al Qaeda militants turned on the Americans.   After Gaddafi died, America wanted to move the automatic weapons, heavy anti-aircraft, etc. which were supplied to Islamic militants, onward to Syria via Turkey to support the overthrow of the government in Syria.  After Gaddafi died, covert U.S. military (managed by Brennan, approved by Obama) attacked the Al Qaeda-connected militants in Libya, and then these well armed militants counter attacked the U.S. Consulate and CIA compound in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans.  As in post-Soviet Afghanistan, America aided the radical Islamists in accomplishing their goal and then the radical Islamists turned on the America.

The Obama administration was secretly working to change the regime in Libya, conducting a secret, undeclared war through proxies.  The radical, rebel proxies probably never were actually under Deputy Brennan’s and Obama’s control.  Even the CIA and normal military chain of command were not aware of Obama’s secret war being carried out by Deputy National Security Adviser Brennan.  The Congress and the people were blinded to U.S. involvement in this regime change in Libya.  Government secrecy and Command Negligence killed Americans.

Osama bin Laden himself may have been a CIA “Asset” i.e. a paid collaborator, possibly trained by American intelligence, although there is dispute about this collaboration.

In a 2004 BBC article entitled “Al-Qaeda’s origins and links”, the BBC wrote:

“During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.”

“Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, and Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2001–2003, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.””

“In conversation with former British Defense Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.”

“Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, has also stated that bin Laden once expressed appreciation for the United States’ help in Afghanistan. On CNN’s Larry King program he said: “This is ironic. In the mid-’80s, if you remember, we and the United – Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn’t it ironic?””

Contrary to the opinion of Dr. Krauthammer, the Vietnam War was categorically different from WWII in many ways.  The Vietnam War was not legally declared by Congress.  The Vietnam War was begun and progressed in secret on the American side for about 10 years.  Secret American activity in Vietnam began in 1954 and expanded under President Kennedy and was secretly conducted by intelligence and U.S. Special Forces.  The American people knew nothing about this war until it was already well advanced and after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August, 1964, an incident which President Johnson used to expand the war.

The North Vietnamese people, industries and government were entirely behind the war, attempting to unite North and South Vietnam into one communist country, the Vietnam which exists today.  The American people did not know they were at war with North Vietnam for about 10 years, but the America government was secretly conducting psychological warfare, spying and bombing the North Vietnamese people, industries and government.  The America government had involved itself in a civil war in Vietnam – part of a global, political, cold war between capitalism and communism – without the legally required declaration of war against North Vietnam and without the knowledge of the American people and most of American industry.  Within 1 to 3 years (1965 to 1968) of Americans becoming aware of this secret war, the majority of Americans had turned against both the war and the American government, both Democrat and Republican, eventually resulting in exit of American forces from Vietnam in 1975…a 31 year war.

Dear Dr. Krauthammer, the secret drone wars of the American government today are similar to the Vietnam War, but not how you imagine.   Both were immoral and strategically wrong.  Today, once Americans understand the deaths and destruction being done by their government in their name, Americans will demand the secret, counter-productive drone wars be stopped.

Germans and Americans were entirely committed to WWII.  North Vietnamese were entirely committed to their war against Americans and the South Vietnamese.  For about 10 years Americans in general were unaware of the war against North Vietnamese and the deadly decisions of the American government.  It is now more than 10 years after September 11, 2001, but Americans in general still do not have transparency about their government’s decisions and actions prior to and after that date.  It is abundantly clear that Americans do not know what happened in Bengazi or what our government really is doing in Yemen, Algeria, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and many other countries and especially in the United States.  U.S. Government contracts reveal that Americans are being spied upon by their government.  Instead of doing their duty to protect our liberty, our government is invading it and planning to further reduce it.

Secrecy is the focus of the problem.  Transparency in government is the solution.  There is no doubt that a database of international terrorists already exists inside American and other governments.  Are you in that database?  How much would you have to spend to find out?  The information in that database would be dramatically improved if peaceful, reform-minded Muslims, especially, and all citizens in general believed that their government would arrest and convict violent terrorists within their community.  But that database must be public and government, politicians, intelligence agents, military personnel who slander must be held civilly and criminally liable for damages.

Quite obviously Muslims not only do not believe that Americans will take effective action against violent jihadists, they are afraid that violent jihadists in their community will harm them, so they must sit in mosques and listen to imams such as Anwar al-Awaki.  In contrast, if the terrorist database and hit list were public information and the terrorists were being arrested and convicted, then peaceful Muslims and all citizens could confidently assist in the profiling and resistance to terrorist activities.  Terrorists of any persuasion would not be able to move around freely or conduct their violence – if there were transparency and their photos were on the internet and every post office.  They would be prevented from boarding airplanes, they would be prevented from entering the country,  learning to fly planes and rent cars.  Their solicitations of violence would become evidence against them as citizens would report them to police, they would be more easily apprehended.  The accused would also have the opportunity to defend themselves in courts of law.  Secret information about individuals and hit lists should be outlawed, and punished as a felony when discovered, whether that information is in the Oval Office, the CIA, or any other government agency.  Incompetent or nefarious government agents would be prosecuted.  Secrecy is the heart of George Orwell’s prophetic book 1984 and the cause of a long list of real life tragedies.  Secrecy is antithetical, destructive to liberty.

How are Americans to measure, judge and correct the actions of their government if the government’s actions, up to and including deadly force against its citizens, are kept secret?  Do you know who is on Obama’s hit list?  The case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, and his American son and friends who were all killed in secret without the due course of justice has revealed the incompetence of the U.S. government at many levels.

So long as the American government conducts secret wars in other countries and keeps secrets from American citizens about its actions in those countries and inside America, then America will continue to have unending wars, the deaths of innocent civilians will increase, and an army of angry enemies of America will grow exponentially.

More young people like Anwar al-Awlaki will be turned into terrorists against America by the American government itself.  So long as the politically correct memes of tolerance and moral equivalence prevent mis-educated Americans from judging between distinct and conflicting moral behaviors, then Americans and all peaceful people will be in deadly danger from both their own government and those who oppose that government.

There is no difference between Dr. Krauthammer’s justification for the deaths by drone of innocent civilians and the justification of violent jihadists for their actions against any American.

Our governments should be profiling and publishing information about all individuals, groups, companies and governments who incite or commit violence against its citizens or their property so that those citizens may better protect themselves and their property, that is a fundamental role of government.  If an accused terrorist is innocent, then by the application of prompt due process, the balance of justice will enable the accused to be released and recover any damages, but not if the government can claim the privilege of secrecy.

The U.S. government should never have been allowed the right of indefinitely and secretly holding a person in America without due process.  Anyone could be held in secret for association with terrorism.  Consider the instances of government incompetence presented above; those are sufficient reasons to distrust the promises by the President or anyone else that these draconian laws will not be misused.  And the President should never have been allowed to kill a citizen without due process of law.   But, very unfortunately, today these things are not only possible but they are already being done under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Patriot Act, both laws supported by both Democrats and Republicans.  It is in the national interest, in your personal interest, to repeal these laws.

The government defines the words “terrorist” and the very ambiguous word “association” and the facts will be withheld as secrets, unless disclosure can be forced using great expense and time.  For example; at least one American, Susan Lindauer, an anti-war activist and CIA “Asset”, was held for two years in an Air Force jail in Texas without due process.  The government attempted to shut her up and to use mind-altering drugs on her.  The CIA and NSA agents who had abundant, admissible evidence to free her were forbidden to testify by the President.  Don’t think it can’t happen here.  It is happening here.

The American government must stop terrorizing and killing innocent civilians with its drones.  Enemy or hijacked drones will soon be in American skies too.   There is a better and moral way.  Transparency in government without delay, and due process is the way.  Secrets in government must end.

References:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/anwar-al-awlakis-boss-is-regular-white-house-visitor/

http://www.businessinsider.com/anwar-al-awlaki-may-have-bought-hijackers-pre-911-tickets-2013-1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9781370/Radical-al-Qaeda-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki-purchased-plane-tickets-for-911-hijackers.html

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/afghanistan/121129/al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-killed-drone-h

You can read more details about Anwar al-Awlaki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi  and here:  http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4729/pub_detail.asp

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/us-revoked-anwar-alawlakis-passport-six-months-before-150521.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_Al-Hijrah

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/30/remarks-president-change-office-chairman-joint-chiefs-staff-ceremony

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

I rarely agree with Code Pink, but here is one time:  They are writing Senator Feinstein to protest against the drone wars and secrecy:  http://codepink.salsalabs.com/o/424/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7129

Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of The Patriot act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.  by Susan Lindauer.

The late Reid Bryson, PhD (Meteorology), the “father of the science of modern climatology” said: “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Reid A. Bryson held the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s was member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor. Bryson was made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program in 1990.   http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

This is not name calling, it’s observation.

Leftist ideologies collapse under their own weight because they were created atomistically…they are theories, e.g. Marxism, created statically and in isolation (which is normal for theories) but then not reconnected and tested against empirical reality before being put into practice.  In other words, they are impractical.  They are subsets of reality that may be totally rational as a theory, but collapse when connected to myriad changing facts of reality.  The theoretician did not connect the dots.  Keynesian economics collapses. Socialism and communism collapse.  Atheism collapses.  Moral relativism collapses.

Fascists and tyrants usually must be overthrown by the people or by the chaos of war.  When people spend their lives, energies, resources and hopes on ideologies and then their ideology collapses, these people become angry and hateful.  Rage and hate can come from any direction, but like today, it usually comes from the left because the left tends to cling to their ideologies, defending and justifying them instead of testing them against reality.  The eco-fascists of the global warming religion are likely to get angry and violent when their grants, budgets and protection by government are denied.

Absolutes come from the right.  The absolutes were always there but we were not aware of them, they come as revelations.  The apple always fell from the tree, it never rose from the tree.  Liberty is the absence of ideology.  The path which increases liberty provides the best chance to adapt to change, but careful analysis is required.  Our intuition is not always correct.  We tend to overlook the fractals of absolutes.  Entropy always increases and is thermodynamically irreversible…life is an expanding fractal.

It is not the most fit or the strongest that survive, it is the most adaptable that survive.  Many of today’s birds were reptiles 140 million years ago…and that genetic code is also in your DNA.

At the present rate of expanding knowledge, in 100 years or less, probably humans will be able to personally control their DNA.  But, there will be fractal absolutes of which we are not yet aware.  The first humans who decide to grow wings and fly, may also discover they cannot also regenerate their internal organs and thus extend their lifespan.  Instead their lifespan may be shortened, perhaps because their bones become very light so that they can fly.

Increasing government control by whatever ideology or …ism contradicts entropy and is obviously the wrong way to govern.  To adapt and survive, we must have liberty.  Today, we have the opposite, we have continually increasing regulations and restrictions, a tightening web of control which limits adaptation.  Survival is at risk.

Revolution is not required.  Revelation is required.  The idiotes must begin to connect the dots.  First, they have to be awakened so that they begin listening.  That frequently requires some pain.  Today’s governments will try to prevent that pain, or blame it on someone other than the government, such as corporations, rich people, the Constitution, or a foreign enemy real or imagined.

The citizenry is manipulated by the bluntest instruments available to government elites: economic depression, continuous warfare and continuously tightening authoritarian regulation and taxes, and the meme of bleeding-heart-liberal true believers upon any incident of violence involving guns is that the guns owned by tens of millions of responsible gun owners should be taken away.

Apparently ignorant of or willingly disbelieving history, suffering from Stockholm syndrome, the true believers cannot imagine that citizens have been disarmed before every dictatorship and it could happen here.  First they will come for everyone but them.  The hypocrites claim that tens of millions of responsible gun owners are selfish, ignorantly clinging to their guns and Bibles, meanwhile the hypocrites want government to take away the guns and rights of tens of millions so that their ignorant little minds are not troubled by the irresponsible few, and, they foolishly believe, they can be protected from armed criminals by the government.

These same bleeding-heart true believers, useful idiots as they are, support the moral equivalence of a broad range of behaviors intolerable to those tens of millions of citizens.  Anything goes in violent and sexually explicit movies, video games and even classrooms endorsing the morally illicit real life behaviors of celebrities.  Hollywood is a top-down bread and circus meme machine for media, politics, and Madison Avenue marketing, the 20^th and 21^st century version of the Roman coliseum, proselytizing youth worldwide to the gladiator life, glorifying the celebrity moment in the sun.

In early May, 2009, in the College Park neighborhood in Atlanta, two armed criminals broke into a house party of students.

After confiscating the group’s valuables, the invaders split the men and women up into different rooms.

Witnesses say the perpetrators then counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.

The students believed the gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.

However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from his backpack and fired at the thug who was detaining the men.

(That is: One smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)

The criminal fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned.

The student continued on into the girls’ room, found the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, preparing to rape his first victim.

The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled through a window and died in front of his apartment, only one building away.

One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.

So what’s the point?

A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder . . . and he did it with a handgun.

This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that criminalize their citizens’ self defense?

Yes, we would be reading an entirely different story from Atlanta — one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words.

If Connecticut’s gun laws were not so restrictive and instead Americans were universally trained in proper use of arms as are the Swiss and Israelis, then perhaps the deranged murderer would have demurred and sought help.  Or perhaps an armed student or teacher could have quickly prevented the slaughters in Connecticut and Columbine, or ended it quickly as was done by this heroic armed student in College Park … and similarly done by armed students in Israel, and many other examples.  But that alternative ending requires an open mind and changing the morally relevant meme of the rich and powerful who don’t want opposition to their global plans.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/college-student-shoots-kills-home-invader/nD9XG/

“We the people” are the idiots who are running this country.  We have allowed two generations of our children to be educated to be compliant citizens and workers for a collectivist government and society.  We allowed them to be educated and governed by others instead of ourselves.  And those others truly believe that their knowledge is better than ours and better than natural law.

This is an excellent interview describing where we are today.  “The End of the Line.” By G. Edward Griffin. Sept 2012  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFii8vqVTTg

Whether we like them or not, over the last 50 years the John Birch Society (JBS) have been correct in almost all of their projections about the future direction of American society.  “The JBS agenda was pro-family, pro-Christian, anti-communist, anti-UN, and anti-big government, while treating the principles of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights as sacrosanct.”  American society today is essentially opposite all of that.

“The JBS charter was based on opposing the plans of a small group of ‘insiders’ working surreptitiously both in and outside of government to bring America’s free-market enterprise system to its knees while incrementally stripping America’s sovereignty and installing a socialist system.”  That is exactly what is happening today.

In her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America at the link below, “Charlotte Iserbyt skillfully demonstrates the interconnections between the international, national, regional, state and local plans for the transformation of American society via education.” http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and staff employee of the US State Department (South Africa, Belgium, South Korea). (wiki)

Ms. Iserbyt’s recommendations were rejected by President Reagan, both Presidents Bush, and of course the entire Democrat/progressive establishment.  As she points out in her book at the link above, the belief that there are two parties in American politics is no more than a nostalgic myth.   For example, Newt Gingrich (who is usually assumed to be a conservative Republican), as Speaker of the House, introduced Alvin Toffler to Congress as his longtime friend and then sat quietly to hear Toffler say that national sovereignty was a thing of the past and that he was an avowed secularist. Toffler wrote Future Shock, The Third Wave, and Creating a New American Civilization.  Each of these books heavily influenced the baby boomers and their parents, that is, the people who are now installed in America’s politics and bureaucracy and America’s educational institutions.  Each of these books heralds the coming “Third Wave” of global, multicultural, tolerant, secular civilization… a veritable tower of Babel.

“Only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable” — Milton Friedman.

Idiotes is a word the ancient Greeks used to describe atomistic thinkers, those people who did not think to connect the dots.We are the idiots of post WWII America who believed our own press and public relations.  We are the idiots who trusted but rarely verified “the experts.”  We are the idiots who believed in technology, who believed in big government, big corporations, big institutions and big ideas.  We are the idiots who did not connect the dots.  We are the idiots who believed that it takes a village instead of individual responsibility.

We are the idiots whose best alternative today is a chaotic, painful crisis which might possibly unify enough people to overthrow our own elected representatives so that we can elect new representatives committed to downsize our government, to eliminate most of the regulations which we have paid trillions of tax dollars to establish, to revert to our original Constitutional and republican form of government, so that our grandchildren and great grandchildren have the liberty we once enjoyed.

===============================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments..

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of “underprivileged” drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspool while their drugged out parents receive child support welfare payments from the government.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing, and free cell phones.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… The government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the Constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iPhones, TV’s and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… your government can add anything they want to your kid’s water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.) but you are not allowed to give them raw milk.

======================================================
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you “safe”.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… an 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched.

======================================================

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Using the “N” word is considered “hate speech” but writing and singing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered “art”.

Dr. Paul’s understanding is great, timely, sorely needed, but largely ignored at our great peril.  This is one of the greatest speeches in America’s  history…perhaps the greatest based on content and substance.  Dr. Paul is not a great orator, communicator or stylist…but we have too many of those and their influence is unfortunately too large.  The content is important, not the messenger.

Video here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/14/ron-pauls-farewell-speech-video/

RON PAUL’S FAREWELL MESSAGE TO AMERICA: EMBRACE LIBERTY OR FACE SELF-DESTRUCTION (FULL TEXT)
11-19-2012 2:02 pm – NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) Ron Paul’s recent farewell speech is arguable the single most important speech in American history. Dr. Paul lays out the fatal problems facing America while pulling no punches. This speech is a must-read piece by anyone who seeks to understand the real reasons why America remains in a downward spiral of social and economic failure under the endless growth of Big Government and runaway debt.

Here’s the full text:

———————————–

This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.

It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.

To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.

The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.

How Much Did I Accomplish?

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways — thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.

All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”

Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

Authoritarianism vs. Liberty

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.

During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.

I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.

Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.

They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.

Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.

But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.

The Age of Redistribution

This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone. That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.

The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.

The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.

If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.

We Need an Intellectual Awakening

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely — that is until it too fails. There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.

If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.

No More ‘isms’

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.

Just this recognition — especially if we move in this direction — increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.

But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.

Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.

It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.

After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.

Dependency on Government Largesse

Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

• Undeclared wars are commonplace.

• Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.

• The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.

• Debt is growing exponentially.

• The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.

• Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.

• The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.

• It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.

• Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.

• Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”

• Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.

• Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.

• Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.

Questions

Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

• Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?

• Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?

• Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?

• Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?

• Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?

• Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?

• Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?

• Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?

• Why should there be mandatory sentences — even up to life for crimes without victims — as our drug laws require?

• Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?

• Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?

• Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?

• Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?

• Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?

• Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?

• Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?

• Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?

• Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?

• Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?

• Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?

• Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.

• Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?

• Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?

• Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?

• Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?

• Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?

• Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?

• Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.

• Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?

• Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?

• Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?

Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.

Trust Yourself, Not the Government

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible.

Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.

Economic Ignorance

Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.

The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned — or especially when well-intentioned — the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.

No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.

The Proliferation of Federal Crimes

The Constitution established four federal crimes. Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books — they number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system — especially the tax code. Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.

The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.

Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

• A government designed to protect liberty — a natural right — as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.

• A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously — though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.

The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis. It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.” It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves.

A Culture of Violence

American now suffers from a culture of violence. It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people — practically at will.

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.” The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.

This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: “destroying a village to save a village” was justified. It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.

Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.

First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.

When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase — as are already occurring — violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program.

When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer just can’t be helped.

When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All moral standards become relative. Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.

Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about.

Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.

To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.

Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.

If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.

It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.

But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.

Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.

The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.

I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.

Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.

If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents.

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement.

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.

Conclusion

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.

5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth — considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.

What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.

The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.

Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.

The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038006_Ron_Paul_farewell_speech_liberty.html

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.

 

In the foreign policy debate last week, President Obama ridiculed Gov. Romney’s observation that the U.S. Navy will soon have the smallest fleet size since WWI.  According to the 14 Admirals and Generals listed below along with their full length press release and their names and ranks, “Gov. Romney was right, the President was wrong.”

A movie “Seal Team Six” is conveniently timed to premier on Nov 4 and features Obama making his big decision to take out Bin Laden.  Here’s the trailer for the movie:  http://www.youtube.com/user/NationalGeographic?v=mBlPxQSMUVs

Active duty military cannot say anything about the President.  One or two have tried and they have been punished.  However, retired military can speak out.  Retired SEALs have spoken out against Obama including a recent book and video.  Polls of the active military by armed forces magazines have Romney ahead by 2 to 1.   Down below is a list of endorsements by retired Generals and Admirals for both Obama and Romney, heavily favoring Romney.  If I missed some endorsers, please let me know and I’ll add them.

There is a video titled “Dishonorable Disclosures” featuring former Special Forces officers that accuses President Barack Obama of taking too much credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and allowing classified information to become public. Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage.

Here’s the short trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-X6Ea7dUTI   and the full length trailer:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0&feature=related  (viewed 5 million times!)

The Benghazi tragedy and subsequent attempted cover-up reveals the failure of Obama’s foreign policy.  A group of retired special ops people called SpecialOPSECteam.org released this short video which blasts the Obama administration for playing politics with lives in Benghazi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RkIO7mNwi4o

You have probably heard that Four Star General Carter Ham was immediately removed for preparing a team to help Benghazi during the fight.  Ham headed AFRICOM, which commands U.S. forces in Africa, for only 18 months.  In addition, the young Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis carrier strike group in the Mediterranean was also removed from duty days after Benghazi.   Of course the spin from Washington denies any connection between these sudden removals and Benghazi.

Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was removed from his command of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located in the Middle East.

CSG-3 is one of five US Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned to the US Pacific Fleet. US Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles, which involve gaining and maintaining sea control and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower ashore.

[snip] This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to “assist and provide intelligence for” American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

]snip] “The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”

US news reports on Obama’s unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouette’s removal was for “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” that arose during the strike group’s deployment to the Middle East.  “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation.

October 26, 2012 “Ambassador” posted the following

http://times247.com/articles/is-a-general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. …

[Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty] and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied.

Read more:http://times247.com/articles/report-cia-denied-requests-for-help-in-benghazi#ixzz2AzRBWI3f

In this short video, Judge Janine describes the Benghazi scandal very clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg-e71IDAUw&feature=player_embedded

Discussing Benghazi, Democrat pollster and strategist Pat Caddell says,

“This White House, this President, this Vice President, this Secretary of State, all of them, are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected…willing to cover up and lie. The worst thing is the very people who are supposed to protect the American people with the truth – the leading mainstream media…they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy, and the enemies of the American people… these people have no honor… coverup is too nice of a word…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsz5iZX9Db4&feature=related

Obama’s Military Endorsements:

General Wesley Clark, USA , (Ret)
General Colin Powell, USA (Ret)
Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Ret)
Admiral Donald Gutter, USN, former JAG of the Navy, (Ret)
Admiral John Nathman, USN, (Ret)

Mitt Romney’s Military Endorsements:

Admiral James B. Busey, USN, (Ret.)
General James T. Conway, USMC, (Ret.)
General Terrence R. Dake, USMC, (Ret)
Admiral James O. Ellis, USN, (Ret.)
Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, USM, (Ret.)
General Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF, (Ret)
General Tommy Franks, USA , (Ret)
General Alfred Hansen, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Ronald Jackson Hays, USN, (Ret)
Admiral Thomas Bibb Hayward , USN, (Ret)
General Chuck Albert Horner, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Jerome LaMarr Johnson, USN, (Ret)
Admiral Timothy J. Keating, USN, (Ret)
General Paul X. Kelley, USMC, (Ret)
General William Kernan, USA , (Ret)
Admiral George E.R. Kinnear II, USN, (Ret)
General William L. Kirk, USAF, (Ret)
General James J. Lindsay, USA , (Ret)
General William R. Looney III, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Hank Mauz, USN, (Ret)
General Robert Magnus, USMC, (Ret)
Admiral Paul David Miller, USN, (Ret)
General Henry Hugh Shelton, USA , (Ret)
General Lance Smith, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Leighton Smith, Jr., USN, (Ret)
General Ronald W. Yates, USAF, (Ret)
Admiral Ronald J. Zlatoper, USN, (Ret)
Lieutenant General James Abrahamson, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Edgar Anderson, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Marcus A. Anderson, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Buck Bedard, USMC, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral A. Bruce Beran, USCG, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lyle Bien, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harold Blot, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Mike Bowman III, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Mike Bucchi, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Walter E. Buchanan III, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Richard A. Burpee, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General William Campbell, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General James E. Chambers, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward W. Clexton, Jr., USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General John B. Conaway, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Marvin Covault, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Terry M. Cross, USCG, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William Adam Dougherty, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Brett Dula, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Gordon E. Fornell, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral David Frost, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Henry C. Giffin III, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Peter M. Hekman, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Richard D. Herr, USCG, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Thomas J Hickey, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Walter S. Hogle, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Ronald W. Iverson, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Donald W. Jones, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Douglas J. Katz, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Jay W. Kelley, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Tom Kilcline, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Timothy A. Kinnan, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Harold Koenig, M.D., USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Buford Derald Lary, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Frank Libutti, USMC, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Stephen Loftus, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Michael Malone, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward H. Martin, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John J. Mazach, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Justin D. McCarthy, USN, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William McCauley, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Joseph S. Mobley, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Dave R. Palmer, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John Theodore “Ted” Parker, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Garry L. Parks, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Henry “Chuck” Pitman, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Steven R. Polk, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral William E. Ramsey, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Joseph J. Redden, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Clifford H. “Ted” Rees, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Edward Rowny, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Dutch Schultz, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles J. Searock, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General E. G. “Buck” Shuler, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Alexander M. “Rusty” Sloan, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Edward M. Straw, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General David J. Teal, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Billy M. Thomas, USA , (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Donald C. “Deese” Thompson, USCG, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Alan S. Thompson, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Herman O. “Tommy” Thomson, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Howard B. Thorsen, USCG, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General William Thurman, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert Allen “R.A.” Tiebout, USMC, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral John B. Totushek, USNR, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General George J. Trautman, USMC, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Garry R. Trexler, USAF, (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudius “Bud” Watts, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General William “Bill” Welser, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Thad A. Wolfe, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General C. Norman Wood, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Michael W. Wooley, USAF, (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Richard “Rick” Zilmer, USMC, (Ret.)
Major General Chris Adams, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Henry Amos, USN (Ret.)
Major General Nora Alice Astafan, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Almon Bowen Ballard, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General James F. Barnette, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Robert W. Barrow, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John R . Batlzer, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jon W. Bayless, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John E. Bianchi, USA , (Ret.)
Major General David F. Bice, USMC, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Linda J. Bird, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James H. Black, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Peter A. Bondi, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John L. Borling, USMC, (Ret.)
Major General Tom Braaten, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Robert J. Brandt, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jerry C. Breast, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Bruce B. Bremner, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas F. Brown III, USN, (Ret.)
Major General David P. Burford, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John F. Calvert, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jay A. Campbell, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Henry Canterbury, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James J. Carey, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Nevin Carr, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Stephen K. Chadwick, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral W. Lewis Chatham, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Jeffrey G. Cliver, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Casey Coane, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Isaiah C. Cole, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Stephen Condon, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Richard C. Cosgrave, USANG, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert Cowley, USN, (Ret.)
Major General J.T. Coyne, USMC, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert C. Crates, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Tommy F. Crawford, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James P. Davidson, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Kevin F. Delaney, USN, (Ret.)
Major General James D. Delk, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Robert E. Dempsey, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jay Ronald Denney, USNR, (Ret.)
Major General Robert S. Dickman, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James C. Doebler, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Douglas O. Dollar, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Hunt Downer, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Thomas A. Dyches, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Jay T. Edwards, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General John R . Farrington, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Francis L. Filipiak, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James H. Flatley III, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Charles Fletcher, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Bobby O. Floyd, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Veronica Froman, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Vance H. Fry, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral R. Byron Fuller, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral George M. Furlong, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Frank Gallo, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Ben F. Gaumer, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Harry E. Gerhard Jr., USN, (Ret.)
Major General Daniel J. Gibson, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Andrew A. Giordano, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Richard N. Goddard, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Fred Golove, USCGR, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Harold Eric Grant, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Jeff Grime, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Robert Kent Guest, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Tim Haake, USAR, (Ret.)
Major General Otto K. Habedank, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas F. Hall, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Donald P. Harvey, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Leonard W. Hegland, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John Hekman, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John A. Hemphill, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Larry Hereth, USCG, (Ret.)
Major General Wilfred Hessert, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Hickman, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Geoffrey Higginbotham, USMC, (Ret.)
Major General Jerry D. Holmes, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Weldon F. Honeycutt, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Steve Israel, USN, (Ret.)
Major General James T. Jackson, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John S. Jenkins, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Tim Jenkins, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Ron Jesberg, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Pierce J. Johnson, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Steven B. Kantrowitz, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John T. Kavanaugh, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Dennis M. Kenneally, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Michael Kerby, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral David Kunkel, USCG, (Ret.)
Major General Geoffrey C. Lambert, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Arthur Langston, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas G. Lilly, USN, (Ret.)
Major General James E. Livingston, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Al Logan, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General John D. Logeman Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Noah H. Long Jr, USNR, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Loren, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Andy Love, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas C. Lynch, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Steven Wells Maas , USN, (Ret.)
Major General Robert M. Marquette, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Larry Marsh, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Clark W. Martin, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General William M. Matz, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Gerard Mauer, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral William J. McDaniel, MD, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral E.S. McGinley II, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Henry C. McKinney, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Robert Messerli, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Douglas S. Metcalf, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John W. Miller, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Patrick David Moneymaker, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Mario Montero, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Douglas M. Moore, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Walter Bruce Moore, USA , (Ret.)
Major General William Moore, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Burton R. Moore, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James A. Morgart, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Stanton R. Musser, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John T. Natter, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Robert George Nester, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General George W. Norwood, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert C. Olsen, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Raymund E. O’Mara, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert S. Owens, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John F. Paddock, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Robert W. Paret, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert O. Passmore, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Earl G. Peck, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Richard E. Perraut Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Gerald F. Perryman, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral W.W. Pickavance, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John J. Prendergast, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Fenton F. Priest, USN, (Ret.)
Major General David C. Ralston, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Bentley B. Rayburn, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Harold Rich, USN , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Roland Rieve, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Tommy F. Rinard, USN , (Ret.)
Major General Richard H. Roellig, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Michael S. Roesner, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral William J. Ryan, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Loran C. Schnaidt, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Carl Schneider, USAF , (Ret.)
Major General John P. Schoeppner, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Edison E. Scholes, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert H. Shumaker, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral William S. Schwob, USCG, (Ret.)
Major General David J. Scott, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Hugh P. Scott, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Richard Secord, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral William H. Shawcross, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Joseph K. Simeone, USAF and ANG , (Ret.)
Major General Darwin Simpson, ANG , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Greg Slavonic, USN , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral David Oliver “D.O.” Smart, USNR, (Ret.)
Major General Richard D. Smith, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Donald Bruce Smith, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Paul O. Soderberg, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert H. “Bob” Spiro, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Henry B. Stelling, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Daniel H. Stone, USN, (Ret.)
Major General William A. Studer, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Hamlin Tallent, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Hugh Banks Tant III , USA , (Ret.)
Major General Larry S. Taylor, USMC, (Ret.)
Major General J.B. Taylor, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Thomas R. Tempel, USA , (Ret.)
Major General Richard L. Testa, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Jere Thompson, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Byron E. Tobin, USN, (Ret.)
Major General Larry Twitchell, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Russell L. Violett, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General David E.B. “DEB” Ward, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Charles J. Wax, USAF, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Donald Weatherson, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John Welde, USAF, (Ret.)
Major General Gary Whipple, USA , (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James B. Whittaker, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Charles Williams, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral H. Denny Wisely, USN, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Theodore J. Wojnar, USCG, (Ret.)
Rear Admiral George R. Worthington, USN, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Arthur Abercrombie, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General John R . Allen, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Loring R. Astorino, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard Averitt, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Garry S. Bahling , USANG, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Donald E. Barnhart, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Charles L. Bishop, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Clayton Bridges, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jeremiah J. Brophy, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General R. Thomas Browning, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General David A. Brubaker, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Chalmers R. Carr, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Fred F. Caste, USAFR, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert V. Clements, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Christopher T Cline, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General George Peyton Cole, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard A. Coleman, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Mike Cushman, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Peter Dawkins, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Sam. G. DeGeneres, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General George Demers, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Howard G. DeWolf, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Arthur F. Diehl, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General David Bob Edmonds, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Anthony Farrington, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Norm Gaddis, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert H. Harkins, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Thomas W. Honeywill, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stanley V. Hood, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General James J. Hourin, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jack C. Ihle, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Thomas G. Jeter, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General William Herbert Johnson, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Kenneth F. Keller, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Wayne W. Lambert, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jerry L. Laws, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Thomas J. Lennon, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General John M. Lotz, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert S. Mangum, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Frank Martin, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Joe Mensching, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard L. Meyer, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Lawrence A. Mitchell, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Michael P. Mulqueen, USMC, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Ben Nelson, Jr., USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jack W. Nicholson, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Maria C. Owens, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Dave Papak, USMC, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Gary A. Pappas, USANG, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Robert V. Paschon, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Allen K. Rachel, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Jon Reynolds, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Edward F. Rodriguez, Jr., USAFR, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Roger Scearce, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Dennis Schulstad, USAFR, (Ret.)
Brigadier General John Serur, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Joseph L. Shaefer, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Graham Shirley, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Raymond Shulstad, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stan Smith, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Ralph S. Smith, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Donald Smith, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Snyder, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Michael Joseph Tashjian, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard Louis Ursone, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Earl Van Inwegen, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Terrence P. Woods, USAF, (Ret.)
Brigadier General Mitchell Zais, USA , (Ret.)
Brigadier General Allan Ralph Zenowitz, USA , (Ret.)

——————————–

Retired Flag Officers Respond to President Obama on Sequestration

In the foreign policy debate this week, President Obama ridiculed Gov. Romney’s observation that the U.S. Navy will soon have the smallest fleet size since WWI.

While it is true that our modern warships are vastly more capable than their predecessors, the President’s response demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the use of naval power.  Capability is essential, but it must be combined with presence to be effective.  The most capable ship in the world can still only be in one place at a time.

As our Navy shrinks, the need for a naval presence has not.  Consequently, we are demanding more and more of our diminishing resources, placing an ever growing burden on an aging fleet and our sailors and marines.  Longer and more frequent deployments are wearing not only wearing out our men and women, but also our machines.  Gov. Romney was right, the President was wrong.

Similarly, our Air Force and Army are in vital need of recapitalization.  We have used up much of our inventories in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.  We have not procured new equipment to replace that which has been lost to combat and normal attrition—and what remains is aging rapidly.  Further, our Army and Marine Corps are suffering the effects of excessive back-to-back deployments.  Shrinking those forces, and denying them the funds necessary to modernize, is a prescription for failure, not success.

President Obama engaged in an effort to deceive the audience when he asserted that Gov. Romney wanted to add funds to the Defense budget that “the Pentagon had not even requested.”  The Pentagon never “requests” more funds than it is allowed to by the White House leadership—no matter how great the need.  Those of us who have retired are not so constrained and can speak the truth.  Here again, Gov. Romney was right.

Two decades ago, President Reagan broke the back of Communism through his commitment to “peace through strength.”  It is a lesson worth remembering.  Gov. Romney clearly understands the concept, President Obama apparently does not.

—————————————————————–

Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, USN, (Ret.)

General Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF, (Ret.)

General Tommy Franks, USA, (Ret.)

General Chuck Albert Horner, USAF, (Ret.)

Admiral Jerome LaMarr Johnson, USN, (Ret.)

Admiral Timothy J. Keating, USN, (Ret.)

General Paul X. Kelley, USMC, (Ret.)

General William Kirk, USAF, (Ret.)

General James J. Lindsay, USA, (Ret.)

General William R. Looney, III, USAF, (Ret.)

General Henry Hugh Shelton, USA, (Ret.)

Admiral Leighton Smith, Jr., USN, (Ret.)

General Ronald W. Yates, USAF, (Ret.)

Admiral Ronald J. Zlatoper, USN, (Ret.)

Military rank does not imply endorsement by the service branch or Department of Defense.

http://www.mittromney.com/coalitions/veterans-and-military-families-for-romney

‎“Why Benghazi Matters” by CHUCK PFARRER  18 Oct 2012, 10:06 AM PDT 

Chuck Pfarrer is a former Assault Element Commander at SEAL Team Six.

Summary:  “It is now known that in the weeks prior to the attack, the United States State Department not only saw fit to reduce security for the consulate but refused repeated requests by Ambassador Stevens and Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom for fences, transportation assets, and special operations forces to augment security. Nordstrom has since testified to congressional investigators that he was ordered to reduce its American security footprint and to rely more on local forces to defend the American consulate. Nordstrom and other security officers in Libya were told to make do with less.”

“The results of this policy were catastrophic. The militiamen detailed to guard the American Ambassador’s residence fled in the first minutes of the raid— leaving Christopher Stevens and his two-man security detail vulnerable. That al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri released a video on September 10th, urging Libyans to attack American targets can hardly be ignored. The failure of the State Department to head this explicit warning and protect our ambassador to Libya is at best negligent, and at worst shows a capricious misunderstanding of the facts on the ground. In the days following the attack, the White House put forward a story that was incompletely informed, if not disingenuous. That the White House deliberately misstated the circumstances surrounding the death of four American citizens is simply too shameful to consider. The September 11th assault on the Benghazi consulate is the single worst attack on an American diplomatic post since the Tehran embassy siege in 1979.”

It has taken more than four weeks, but the facts of the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi are slowly emerging.

It is now known that on the evening of September 11, 2012, Ambassador Christopher Stevens conducted a scheduled meeting with a Turkish diplomat. At approximately 8:30 PM, the ambassador saw his visitor out the gate. There were no protesters in front of the consulate then, nor did any of the survivors of the attack report the presence of demonstrators prior to the initial assault. Videotapes recovered from the compound show, at least partially, what happened.

At 9:40 PM, rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons tore into the front of the compound. Inside the consulate, American security personnel immediately contacted the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, as well as the State Department Crisis Desk in Washington, informing both locations that they were under attack. Per standing orders, Ambassador Stevens and diplomat Sean Smith were placed in a safe room in the ambassador’s residence. Within minutes, an outbuilding housing a Libyan security force was on fire, and the militiamen assigned to protect the compound had melted away into the night.

Incoming RPG and machine gun fire became so heavy that the security officers were forced to retreat and barricade themselves into a command center adjacent to the Ambassador’s residence. Now holed up in separate buildings, the Americans were surrounded. The situation would rapidly go from bad to worse. The consulate summoned a U.S. quick reaction force stationed in a security compound across town. Accompanied by sixty Libyan security guards, four American agents set out in an armored SUV to break the siege. Before they could reach the compound, terrorists had forced their way into both of the consulate’s residential buildings. Failing to break through the locked grate work that protected Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, the assaulters splashed diesel fuel and set the building on fire. Smoke and flames rapidly filled the residence.

American and Libyan security personnel were eventually able to fight their way in and establish a shaky perimeter. Crawling on hands and knees, rescuers entered the smoke-clogged building in an attempt to reach Stevens and Smith. The Ambassador’s body was located and dragged from the flames; he was unresponsive and succumbed to smoke inhalation on scene. Under increasingly heavy gunfire, the Americans were forced to abandon the effort to recover the body of Sean Smith.

Gathering the survivors, the rescuers placed Ambassador Stevens’ body into the armored SUV and began an arduous journey back to the security compound. After forcing their way through the ring of gunmen who had encircled the consulate, the vehicle was ambushed repeatedly. Pocked by bullets, and with two tires flattened by a grenade attack, the SUV managed to reach the relative safety of the security compound sometime after 11 PM. This location, too, came under attack, enduring several hours of mortar, RPG, and heavy machine gun fire until the terrorist force withdrew shortly before dawn.

In addition to Ambassador Stevens and State Department information specialist Sean Smith, two ex-Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed in the attack. Another of the American rescuers, also a special operations veteran, was severely wounded. Videos posted later on Islamic websites showed the body of one of the American victims being dragged from the building amid chants of God is great. The ugly footage showed a bullet-riddled, smoke-streaked building, torn by explosions and thoroughly looted.

Days after the attack, America’s ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made the rounds of the Sunday Morning news programs, stating that the Benghazi consulate was burned during an anti-American demonstration. The State Department, and presumably the White House, were by then in possession of the basic facts of the incident, and knew, from communications sent directly from Benghazi and Tripoli, that the attack was a terrorist action involving heavy weapons and mortars. Why, then, was the administration pushing a story of mob action? What was to be gained from concealing the true circumstances of the incident?

It is now known that in the weeks prior to the attack, the United States State Department not only saw fit to reduce security for the consulate but refused repeated requests by Ambassador Stevens and Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom for fences, transportation assets, and special operations forces to augment security. Nordstrom has since testified to congressional investigators that he was ordered to reduce its American security footprint and to rely more on local forces to defend the American consulate. Nordstrom and other security officers in Libya were told to make do with less.

The results of this policy were catastrophic. The militiamen detailed to guard the American Ambassador’s residence fled in the first minutes of the raid— leaving Christopher Stevens and his two-man security detail vulnerable. That al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri released a video on September 10th, urging Libyans to attack American targets can hardly be ignored. The failure of the State Department to head this explicit warning and protect our ambassador to Libya is at best negligent, and at worst shows a capricious misunderstanding of the facts on the ground.

In the days following the attack, the White House put forward a story that was incompletely informed, if not disingenuous. That the White House deliberately misstated the circumstances surrounding the death of four American citizens is simply too shameful to consider. The September 11th assault on the Benghazi consulate is the single worst attack on an American diplomatic post since the Tehran embassy siege in 1979. The American people deserve a full and open investigation into the murder of Ambassador Stevens. They deserve also to know about the gallant actions of the brave Americans who tried to meet this terrorist attack with woefully inadequate resources.

Benghazi matters — both for what happened on that terrible night and what happened afterwards.

Chuck Pfarrer is a former Assault Element Commander at SEAL Team Six. He is the New York Times bestselling author of SEAL Target Geronimo: Inside the Mission to Kill Osama Bin Laden, and Warrior Soul: The memoir of a Navy SEAL. Pfarrer serves presently as an Associate Editor of The Counterterrorist Journal and is a distinguished fellow of the US Naval Special Warfare Institute.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/18/Benghazi-Why-It-Matters

Please sign this petition against a United Nations imposed tax on the Internet.  It only takes a second, it’s free.  A email letter which you can edit will be sent to President Obama and your members of Congress.  Speak up against UN regulation of the Internet and against giving countries the right to censor the Internet.  Help stop giving the UN the power to assign e-addresses and obligate them to report these e-addresses and IP addresses to host countries (so China can track down dissidents)!

Sign The Petition Against A UN Imposed Tax On The Internet!