President Obama has once again used his executive power to grant military and federal civilian employees a pay raise. The size of the pay raise he has deemed ‘unfortunate but necessary.’
In an August 31 letter to Congress, Obama set the military pay level at “0.5 percent below the expected increase in private sector wages, which would mark the fourth year in a row troops’ pay hikes failed to keep pace with their civilian peers,” according to Military Times.
Military service members will receive, according to this proposal, a monthly pay raise of 1.6 percent, just a bit over the 1.3 percent that was approved by Obama last fiscal year.
Just how much would this 1.6 percent pay increase affect our service members? For most enlisted troops it will mean a $400 yearly increase and for mid-career officers the raise could be as much as $1,500.
In the letter, Obama stated, “This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2017 budget. It will not materially affect the federal government’s ability to attract and retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services.”
Representatives are still arguing over authorizations and defense monies. Lawmakers could still find opportunities to supersede Obama’s decision, though that seems unlikely.
Over the next five years this substandard pay raise could potentially save over $2.2 billion in an effort to “preserve funding for modernization and training priorities.”
Obama wrote, “I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members, who have made such great contributions to our nation over more than a decade of war. As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our nation on a sustainable fiscal course.”
“This effort requires tough choices, especially in light of budget constraints,” declared Obama.
The impact of low pay increases is far-reaching within our military communities and affect our troops at home and abroad. Troops should be able to keep their minds on their missions, not distracted by financial worries at home. The Pentagon, however, believes their harm would be greater if the money was not spent on protecting the troops with proper equipment and training.
The 1.6 percent pay raise will begin on January 1, though the debate on the issue is not over and will begin again later this week.
Related video:
Obama Vetoes Troops Pay Raises Over Guantanamo Bay Issues:
Guantanamo Bay, long a thorn in the side of the Obama administration, is in the news again with the recent release of 15 detainees.
In the largest transfer under Obama, detainees were shipped to the United Arab Emirates in an effort to close Guantanamo Bay permanently.
The recently released detainees, mostly held without charges ever having been filed against then, had been there approximately 14 years, according to the Associated Press.
The Periodic Review Board cleared the detainees for release and includes representatives from six U.S. government agencies.
“The Pentagon says 61 detainees now remain at Guantanamo, which was opened in January 2002 to hold foreign fighters suspected of links to the Taliban or the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. During the Bush administration, 532 prisoners were released from Guantanamo, often in large groups to Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia,” reports the Associated Press.
Of the 61 detainees, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, 20 have been approved for transfer, 7 are facing criminal charges and 34 remain in continued detention. At its peak in June of 2003 Guantanamo Bay’s population reached 684 detainees.
The State Department’s special representative, Lee Wolosky, stated that the administration was ‘grateful’ that the detainees were accepted by the United Arab Emirates.
“The continued operation of the detention facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists.”
It is Obama’s contention that keeping Guantanamo Bay open will severely hinder relationships with other countries that the U.S. needs to help in the fight of global terrorism. Guantanamo “undermines our standing in the world,” Obama stated.
With a majority Republican congress since 1929, it has been a challenge for Obama to close the facility that has a price tag of $445 million annually.
“In clearing [one of the detainees] for transfer, the review board said he hasn’t expressed any anti-U.S. sentiment or intent to re-engage in militant activities. However, a Pentagon detainee profile also said he provided little information and they had little “insight into his current mindset.”
Arguing the danger these detainees pose to the U.S., some politicians from both sides stated their frustration at the prison still being open saying that they are too dangerous to remain in either civilian prisons or on American soil.
But what has happened to the detainees already released thus far? According to the Director of National Intelligence, 21% of the detainees released under George W. Bush went straight back to militant motion.
Under the Obama administration 5% have been confirmed to have reengaged in militant activities that they know of.
There is, however, a huge resentment of the U.S. by Afghans who felt their treatment was deplorable and they were confused at why they were sent there in the first place.
The Pentagon, however, feels that the resentment felt by the detainees was due more to “an emotion that probably is motivated more by frustration over his continuing detention than by a commitment to global jihad.”
Most of us have heard that some republicans have been alarmed the closer Donald Trump comes to occupying space within the White House. They had been seeking very creative ways to deny him the Republic Nomination or even replace him with another candidate. Democrats, however, have jumped on the creative bandwagon.
The Op-Edby James Kirchick of the Foreign Policy Initiative ran an article in the very liberal Los Angeles Times and actually suggested an American military coup if Donald Trump became president.
Interestingly, it tends to be the right that instigates a military coup but in this case it is the left-wingers arguing “that an overthrow of the U.S. government might be necessary if Trump is elected president,” reports The Washington Times.
The #NeverTrump movement have worked feverishly to oust Trump and have tried just about everything in the book. From trying to change convention rules to searching for a conservative independent candidate to take him head on in the general election. Both efforts have failed miserably.
Of course the next sensible step would be to use the U.S. Military to actually overthrow the prospective Trump from office. You can’t make this stuff up!
According to Kirchick, “Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. If Trump wins, a coup isn’t impossible here in the U.S.”
“Voters must stop him before the military has to,” Kirchick went on to say.
The backlash from Los Angeles Times readers has been significant with many comments very critical and calling the article “reprehensible.”
“Is this a joke,” stated one commenter. “Sounds like [it’s] written by some nut job…the LA Times should know better [than] to publish this crap.”
It’s no secret that Kirchick has a distaste for Trump and has many harsh things to say about him but to irresponsibly suggest a military coup seems even a stretch for him.
Kirchick argues, however, that Mr. Trump may command our military to do something “stupid, illegal or irrational… Faced with opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and back down. But what if he didn’t?”
It seems to me that we have a person currently running this country who does stupid, illegal or irrational things right at this very moment. Why then, Mr. Kirchick, are you not screaming THAT from the rooftops instead of inciting anger and hate with a call for a military coup?
Get it together Mr. Kirchick because what you are proposing would pose a greater danger to America’s security and prosperity, not to mention overall health, of this Great nation.
In A move that has raged the GOP, President Obama has made secret side deals with Iran.
According to theAssociated Press, a side deal was made between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency allowing Iran to use its own inspectors to inspect a location accused of building nuclear arms. It is usually the U.N. who inspects such sites, so why not this site?
“International inspections should be done by international inspectors,” stated Ed Royce, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman. “Period.”
It was a document seen by AP that brought this issue to light and that has the Republican lawmakers angered. Already very critical of Obama’s Iran Deal because it is basically built recklessly on trust alone with the Iranians, the GOP finds this new development imprudent.
It was the Obama Administration who insisted it would depend on reliable scrutiny over the Iranian sites in question. Not only the GOP but many of us want to know why, then, are the Iranians inspecting their own sites?
House Speaker John Boehner stated, “President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient—and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.”
“Worse,” according toESHRAF, “Obama didn’t even reveal the existence of these secret side deals to Congress when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. The agreements were uncovered, completely by chance, by two members of Congress — Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — who were in Vienna meeting with the U.N.-releated agency.”
It was President Obama who signed into law The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This law unequivocally states that all materials and ‘annexes’ associated with the Iran Deal must be transmitted by the president to Congress. Well, it seems that the president has broken the law, one in which he wrote.
All of this aside, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is not sure what the disclosure has to do with the Iran Deal because, according to her, the disclosure relates to pastmilitary efforts and not any nuclear efforts moving ahead.
Pelosi stated, “I truly believe in this agreement.” If there were a vote today “the president’s veto would be sustained. But I feel very confident about it…We will sustain the veto.”
Before voting on the Iran deal Congress should be adamant about seeing the side deals. How many of us would buy a piece of land site unseen and just take the sellers word for it that the land was fertile, especially when that seller has a bit of a track-record for embellishments?
It will take a two-thirds vote in both houses to override the president’s veto, 45 House Democrats and 13 Senate Democrats.
Pompeo stated, “My mission in the next 45 days is to convince 45 House Democrats to override the veto. It’s a long climb, but this is important.”
Iran is getting ready to come into $150 billion dollars in sanctions relief. These relief moneys are based on negotiated agreements between Iran and IAEA that not one U.S. representative has viewed.
Is this wise, Mr. President? You may very well be putting our national security at great risk. “We need to see these documents in order to evaluate whether or not verification is ample to make such a big concession to the Iranians,” Pompeo said.
“No member of Congress should be asked to vote on an agreement of this historic importance absent knowing what the terms of the verification process are.”
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the second of perhaps a growing list of Democrats to openly appose President Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal which would grant Iran liberation from economic sanctions in exchange for Iran tightening its belt on their nuclear agenda.
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York was the first Democrat to openly oppose Obama on the deal.
Like many Americans, Menendez is troubled by Iran’s past record of violating a variety of different U.N. Security Council resolutions while at the same time moving forward with their nuclear agenda.
Menendez “says that he is concerned that the agreement doesn’t require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure,” reports theAssociated Press. “He says it’s not an issue of whether he supports or opposes President Barack Obama, who has pledged to veto a congressional resolution of disapproval.”
In a speech on Tuesday, Menendez stated, “Let’s remind ourselves of the stated purpose of our negotiations with Iran: Simply put, it was to dismantle all—or significant parts—of Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability at any time. Not shrink its infrastructure.”
Menendez went on to say, “We must send a message to Iran that neither their regional behavior nor nuclear ambitions are permissible. If we push back regionally, they will be less likely to test the limits of our tolerance towards any violation of a nuclear agreement.”
Unlike California’sNancy Pelosi, who is certain of the ability to pull in all the votes needed to pass this deal, Menendez and Schumer are openly striving to convince others that this Iran deal is not the way to go.
President Obama uses a message of hope to convince Americans of the Iran deal and Menendez isn’t having any of that message.
“Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ‘hope’—hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires, Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration,” stated Menendez. Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.”
It has been four years since the shooting down of a United States helicopter that killed members of Seal Team 6 in Afghanistan and a watchdog group is charging the Obama administration with not turning over documents of the incident.
The Seal Team 6 helicopter was shot down on August 6, 2011 and the judge-ordered documents have yet to be handed over by Obama.
What really happened, American’s may be wondering? Why wouldn’t the Obama Administration happily comply with the judge’s orders, turn over the documents and put to ease and rest the many families who have suffered no knowing the answers they deserve?
According toRedFlag, the families of the Seal Team 6 may have died because of an inside job.
The investigative file made available to The Washington Times shows that the helicopter’s landing zone was not properly vetted for threats nor protected by gunships, while commanders criticized the mission as too rushed and the conventional Chinook chopper as ill-suited for a dangerous troop infiltration.
…
Larry Klayman, who runs the nonprofit watchdog group Freedom Watch, has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Pentagon, as well as the Air Force, Army and Navy. He wants a judge to order the military to turn over an array of documents under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. He said the Defense Department stonewalled his written requests, so Freedom Watch went to court last month and succeeded in forcing the government to turn over records.
For the first time, Mr. Klayman allowed The Washington Times to view the military’s investigative files turned over to family members two years ago.
“The families of our fallen heroes, who I am proud to represent, need closure to this tragedy,” Mr. Klayman said. “There are many unanswered questions and the military’s explanations of the causes of the crash do not add up.”
He said families also want changes to the military’s restrictive rules of engagement that made it more difficult for U.S. helicopter pilots to fire back at the Taliban fighters they believed brought down the Chinook.
“The families also want our military’s rules of engagement to be changed, as a testament to and in honor of their dead sons,” Mr. Klayman said. “When our nation enters into battle, it must be to win the battle, not the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Islamic jihadist enemy and the Muslim civilian population it uses as human shields.”
He also wants to know the identities of Afghan soldiers onboard, and why the aircraft’s black box, washed away in a fierce rainstorm, was never found — even though it has a homing device.
“We want to make sure our fallen heroes are respected and that answers are provided,” he said.
About a possible insider betrayal, he says: “We’re not saying that happened, but it needs to be explored because increasingly Americans are being killed at the hands of Afghans.”
The Families are not alone in their thoughts. In fact, Many American’s believe the Team had been set up…
Watch: SEAL Team 6 Was Murdered
There were 30 U.S. Soldiers on board the CH-47 Chinook helicopter and one American K-9 soldier. In just one day, America endured the greatest single life loss since the war began in 2001.
“Fifteen Navy Seals from Naval Special Warfare Development Group’s Gold Squadron and five U.S. Naval Special Warfare support personnel based in Virginia Beach were Among the Victims,” reportsNewsChannel 3.
The following sailors assigned to an East Coast-based Naval Special Warfare unit were killed:
Lieutenant Commander (SEAL) Jonas B. Kelsall, 32, of Shreveport, Louisiana
Special Warfare Operator Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Louis J. Langlais, 44, of Santa Barbara, California
Special Warfare Operator Senior Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Thomas A. Ratzlaff, 34, of Green Forest, Arkansas
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician Senior Chief Petty Officer (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist/Freefall Parachutist) Kraig M. Vickers 36, of Kokomo, Hawaii,
Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Brian R. Bill, 31, of Stamford, Connecticut
Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) John W. Faas, 31, of Minneapolis, Minnesota
Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Kevin A. Houston, 35, of West Hyannisport, Massachusetts
Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Matthew D. Mason, 37, of Kansas City, Missouri
Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Stephen M. Mills, 35, of Fort Worth, Texas,
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician Chief Petty Officer (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist/Freefall Parachutist/Diver) Nicholas H. Null, 30, of Washington, West Virginia
Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Robert J. Reeves, 32, of Shreveport, Louisiana
Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Heath M. Robinson, 34, of Detroit, Michigan
Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Darrik C. Benson, 28, of Angwin, California
Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL/Parachutist) Christopher G. Campbell, 36, of Jacksonville, North Carolina
Information Systems Technician Petty Officer 1st Class (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist/Freefall Parachutist) Jared W. Day, 28, of Taylorsville, Utah,
Master-at-Arms Petty Officer 1st Class (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist) John Douangdara, 26, of South Sioux City, Nebraska
Cryptologist Technician (Collection) Petty Officer 1st Class (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist) Michael J. Strange, 25, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL/Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist) Jon T. Tumilson, 35, of Rockford, Iowa,
Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Aaron C. Vaughn, 30, of Stuart, Florida, and
Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Jason R. Workman, 32, of Blanding, Utah.
The following sailors assigned to a West Coast-based Naval Special Warfare unit were killed:
Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Jesse D. Pittman, 27, of Ukiah, California, and
Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Nicholas P. Spehar, 24, of Saint Paul, Minnesota
The soldiers killed were:
Chief Warrant Officer David R. Carter, 47, of Centennial, Colo. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), Aurora, Colorado
Chief Warrant Officer Bryan J. Nichols, 31, of Hays, Kan. He was assigned to the 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), New Century, Kansas
Staff Sgt. Patrick D. Hamburger, 30, of Lincoln, Neb. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), Grand Island, Nebraska * Sergeant Hamburger was posthumously promoted to Staff Sergeant.
Sgt. Alexander J. Bennett, 24, of Tacoma, Wash. He was assigned to the 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), New Century, Kansas; and
Spc. Spencer C. Duncan, 21, of Olathe, Kan. He was assigned to the 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), New Century, Kansas
The airmen killed were:
Tech. Sgt. John W. Brown, 33, of Tallahassee, Florida
Staff Sgt. Andrew W. Harvell, 26, of Long Beach, California; and
Tech. Sgt. Daniel L. Zerbe, 28, of York, Pennsylvania
We stand and Salute every single one of you and thank you for your sacrifices though it simply will never be enough…. God hold and protect you and your families.
To say we have global security threats might be an understatement. Just looking at a few of them should give us reason for pause and concern.
In the 29 pages of the Obama administration’s2015 National Security Strategyreport, the increase of nuclear threat or nuclear material is referred to eight times.
“…no threat poses as grave a danger to our security and well-being as the potential use of nuclear weapons and materials by irresponsible states or terrorists.” (Page 11)
President Barrack Obama’s answer to the possible nuclear threat from Iran, for example, is to turn a sworn and very old enemy of the United States into an ally in order to join with other regional allies to help with threats such as fighting the Islamic State.
But is this something viable? “The effort has no obvious precedent in U.S. history, and analogies to earlier landmark successes—arms control with the soviets and President Richard Nixon’s opening to China—don’t withstand scrutiny. And if Obama’s problematic theory of global change doesn’t bear fruit, the deal will severely imperil U.S. national security,” reportsUS News.
Cyber Security threats are another hot topic when it comes to Global Security. James Andrew Lewis, a programmer at theCenter for Strategic and International Studies, states, “The biggest threats come from four countries: Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.”
“Russian and Chinese hackers steal billions from the U.S. every year. Iran and North Korea are risky because they have used cyber attacks for political coercion against U.S. Citizens. Any of these four could disrupt critical services or data, and while Russia and China are careful, Iran or North Korea could easily make a mistake.”
So, even if the Obama administration is successful in his nuclear deal with Iran, America still faces a very real and potentially devastating Cyber Security threat from them.
Finally, the threat of Social Unrest. Lets face it, most would agree we look more like a Police State than a democracy and with this comes civil unrest.
“With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed,” reportsLewRockwell.com.
The influx of immigrants to America, for example, legal or otherwise, has set many citizens at each other’s throats because of differing opinions of what that means for America, politically, economically and socially.
The constant disregard of U.S. borders have caused many American’s to be distrustful and angry with the White House administration and worry what the influx of immigrants means from a welfare and safety stance.
Sociology professor Ruben Rumbaut warns of the danger that “civil unrest in the United States will result if we ignore the developing underclass of children born to illegal immigrants,” reports PR News wire. “…illegal immigration in the United States could lead to the same type of violence that occurred in France and England.”
After 9/11 the world seems committed to perpetual war and America became conditioned to accept total surveillance. We have become used the Political Correctness we are being fed and the regulations imposed upon us by an ever growing government who tells Americans what to think, eat and say. Since the 9/11 attacks America has also seen a sharp decline in our civil liberties.
America seems to be growing ever discontent as see cries for security and safety from her government. The civil unrest that could very possibly ensue would have a direct impact of Global Security.
Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, cautioned on Tuesday that global threats are increasing and that “the world risks becoming immune and [is] doing nothing [about it],” according toMilitary Times.
“In my 41 years of military service, I’ve never witnessed such significant shifts in the international security environment as we are seeing all around us today,” he said. “The complex array of threats and, let’s call it geopolitical jockeying, requires all of us to contend with an unpredictable landscape.”
It is amazing how all these attacks are piling from the left against Donald Trump for simply exposing the rape epidemic on the Mexican border while no attacks were made against President Obama who during a town hall style event in Nashville, to discuss Obamacare, President Obama referred to some illegal immigrants as “gang-bangers,” adding they should be deported.
Then we have CNN which tries to refute what is obviously a major problem on the Mexican borders, the raping of women. CNN host Don Lemon interviewed Donald Trump a few minutes ago and they aired a portion of the interview where Trump defended his comments that rapists were coming from Mexico.
Don tries to suggest that the articles Trump is referring in his defense only talk about illegal women being raped (I guess this should not matter to CNN) and not that rapists and criminals are coming across the border. But Trump responds ‘Somebody’s doing the raping, Don…how can you say such a thing!?’
Watch:
How the whole liberal world is attacking Trump is disgusting and it is usually folks who could care less about the evils that happen, they in turn, turn a blind eye, to what is happening, and do anything to slander the messenger instead of dealing with the issues at hand.
Yet during a town hall style event in Nashville to discuss Obamacare, President Obama referred to some illegal immigrants as “gang-bangers,” adding they should be deported.
So is it okay to call Mexicans “gang-bangers” and it is not okay to expose the rape epidemic?
“We should not be encouraging illegal immigration,” he remarked to the group. “What we should be doing is setting up a smart legal immigration system that doesn’t separate families but does focus on making sure that people who are dangerous, people who are, you know, gang-bangers, who are criminals that we’re deporting as quickly as possible.”
Obama boasted that “we’ve made improvements on all those fronts,” but blamed House Republicans for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
During his conversation, he pointed out that some illegal immigrants are contributing to society and families need a pathway to legalization.
He referred to his executive actions on immigration reform as one way he was handling the issue in the meantime while he’s waiting for Congress to act.
“I suspect this will be a topic of conversation during the upcoming presidential campaign,” he said.
Don’t forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.
The Silent Soldier 