Bill Walker for Governor announces Chris Fleener as LT GOV running mate

Bill Walker's independent campaign moves forward with announcement of Chris Fleener as LT Gov candidate running mate.

 Fairbanks, AK, October 14, 2013 -- Independent candidate for governor, Bill Walker, announced today his running mate and candidate for Lt. Governor, Craig L. Fleener of Fort Yukon, Alaska.  Fleener is a lifelong Alaskan, military veteran and former Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.  He is Gwich’in Athabascan and is a descendent of the Doyon Limited region.  Each candidate will gather 3,017 signatures and appear on the November 2014, ballot.

 

EXPERIENCE: as the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Fish & Game, Mr. Fleener provided policy and administrative guidance on wildlife and subsistence management, and worked closely with the divisions of Wildlife Conservation, Subsistence, and Habitat on policy, regulatory, management and funding issues.  He also served on the Alaska Board of Game, and also as the Director for the Division of Subsistence.

Prior to joining the Department of Fish & Game, Mr. Fleener served in several capacities for the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (“CATG”) in Fort Yukon, including service as Executive Director of that organization. While at CATG, Mr. Fleener served for a number of years as the only U.S. representative on the Gwich’in Council International, a permanent observer organization of the Arctic Council, an international body made up of eight arctic nations which identified problems and created solutions for pollution, international shipping, natural resource development, human dimensions issues and indigenous peoples’ concerns for the arctic region on a global level.

MILITARY: In 1986, Mr. Fleener joined the military and served in the United States Marine Corps.  He is currently a Major in the US Air Force Alaska Air National Guard, where he has served since 1991, and is a senior intelligence officer and recently served a tour of duty in Afghanistan as part of ongoing US operations in the region.  He volunteers as a board member for HAVE Alaska (Helping American Veterans Experience Alaska) providing psychological and physical rehabilitation for wounded veterans.

EDUCATION: Mr. Fleener received his Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resources Management from the University of Alaska – Fairbanks in 1999, and in 2013 graduated with Honors from American Public University with a Master of Arts in Intelligence Studies.  He completed substantial work on a Masters of Science in Resources & Environment from the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada in 2001, but was unable to complete the degree because of military activations.

"I am in this race to help bring all Alaskan voices together," Craig Fleener stated. "I am working to unite Alaskans and my ultimate goal is to bring us together to solve the problems that we face in order to build a stronger Alaska."

Bill Walker stated, "Craig Fleener brings to this Alaska ticket a depth and wealth of experience in fish and game management, military and veterans' affairs, circum-Arctic policy experience and his proud Alaska Native heritage."

 

 

JBER CO orders Chaplain to remove religious message

Tod Starnes of Fox News reported today that COL Brian P. Duffy, the base commander of Joint Base Elmendorf-Ft. Richardson, Alaska, ordered chaplain LTCOL Kenneth Reyes to remove a message titled "No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains gave all in WWII" in a column he had written for the "Chaplain’s Corner" on the base website. The reason: "out of respect for those who considered its title offensive . . . " The column was removed within five hours after publication.

As reported by Breitbart’s Ken Klukowski, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) had contacted COL Duffy about what they described as Reyes’ ". . . use of bigoted, religious supremacist phrase" meaning "no atheists in foxholes" attributed to Catholic Father William Cummings at Bataan during WWII.

In 1954, during a speech, then President Dwight D. Eisenhower confirmed Father Cumming’s comment: " "I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes."

Allegedly, 41 airmen at JBER complained about the title to Chaplain Reyes’s column, leading to the attack by the MRFF. COL Duffy has "profusely" apologized to the MRFF for what the MRFF described as LTCOL Reyes’s "anti-secular diatribe."

MRFF is now demanding that LTCOL be punished: "Faith based hate, is hate all the same . . . LTCOL Reyes must be appropriately punished."

MRFF is atheist activist Mikey Weinstein’s creation. Weinstein has been emphatic in his hatred of Christianity. He has deemed Christians "fundamentalist monsters" who seek to impose a reign of "theocratic terror" and the gospel as "spirtual rape". He has stated publically that Christians are enemies of the Constitution and their beliefs constitute sedition and treason. This is the man that SECDEF Hodges has met with and with whom the Obama DOD has consulted with over the last four years who has further stated that there is no legal bar to suppressing religious free speech in the military.

Congress has responded with a bill providing free practice of religion in the military. The Obama Administration is diametrically opposed to such legislation.

This is an incredible assault on the 1^st Amendment and upon the faith of the majority of the troops who serve this country. LTCOL Reyes column is accessed by all who served at JBER and any who may visit the site from anywhere in the world. To believe that the title is an affront when the title plainly states it is about chaplains, military religious leaders, is simply outrageous. Apparently, COL Duffy has little understanding of the 1^st Amendment.

The current Chaplain’s corner has a piece on keeping one’s financial house in order by Army CPT James Duran: http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123355549

COL Brian Duffy should be sacked and transferred to Shemya Is. where his primary duty should be to stand at attention each morning, noon, and at 1700 and to shout the Bill of Rights in his best command voice to the world. Then, he should be given a brush and a bucket and told to remove the sea gull excrement from the rocks. A sentence of six months of such duty would be appropriate. This man absolutely does not understand his soldiers nor his responsibilities as base commander. He is a puppet who puts his political masters above his oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Atheists and homosexuals are the root of this malignancy in our military. This is the outcome of the liberal experiment: "sit down and shut up, if you believe in God, are a patriot, are believe in heterosexual marriage and family, believe in the sanctity of life and of the unborn, and believe that our national borders should be inviolate, that our sovereignty and our culture are to be respected.

For more information:

http://www.jber.af.mil/index.asp

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/chaplain-ordered-to-remove-religious-essay-from-military-website.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/24/Military-Censors-Christian-Chaplain-Atheists-Call-for-Punishment

http://www.frcblog.com/

Benghazi: The Obama Admin left them without support . . .

On the 11th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack upon the United States by Islamic jihadists, the United States Mission in Libya located in Benghazi was attacked by Islamic militants.  Our Ambassador and three other U.S. personnel were killed.  In the aftermath of the attack, the Obama Administration had placed blame on a little known Youtube video.  Since, the Obama Administration has finally admitted that the attack was a coordinated attack by an armed force conducting a military operation against the U.S. Mission and the nearby CIA Annex. 

Fox News is reporting that the CIA team located approximately two blocks away from the American Mission building were in constant contact with their headquarters from the start of the attack on the American Mission in Benghazi.  They requested help from U.S. military sources three times through the CIA chain of command.   It is alleged that their superiors ordered them to stand down three times and not to go to the assistance of the State Dept. mission personnel.  However, this allegation is denied by General David Petraeus, Director of the CIA.

A statement attributed to CIA Director General David Petraeus reported by the Weekly Standard stated:  "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."  Who then ordered the CIA personnel at the Annex not to go to the assistance of their fellow Americans under attack at the American Mission two blocks away?

Four CIA personnel disobeyed the orders to stand down and proceeded to the Mission building and rescued several personnel and recovered the body of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  Ex-Navy Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were later killed in a mortar attack on the CIA annex two blocks from the State Dept. mission.

The entire attack was streamed live to the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA from security cameras at the U.S. Mission.  There were at least two MQ-1 Predator drones overhead with live video coverage being provided from those sources.  The Predators may have been controlled by British pilots.  The British were given several drone aircraft for reconnaissance during the NATO involvement in indicting Ghadaffi's armed forces operating against the rebels.

The attack upon the Benghazi U.S. Mission and the nearby CIA Annex was conducted by an estimated 120 well armed jihadists.  Within two hours Ansar al-Sharia, the Al Qaeda group operating in Libya, was claiming responsibility for the attack.

The attack upon the U.S. Mission and the CIA Annex raged for 7 hours with reinforcements and tactical air support readily available at NAS Sigonella and elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa.  Elements of the USAF 177th Tactical Air Wing are stationed at Aviano AB in northern Italy, less than 2 hours away from Benghazi on full afterburner for F15s and F16s. 

The Benghazi Mission and CIA Annex were less than 2 hours away from NAS Signonella on Sicily.  NAS Signonella hosts NATO and USAF aircraft such as the AC130U Specter.  The AC130U is a heavily armed variant of the C130 tactical airlift aircraft that is armed with a 105mm cannon, a 40mm cannon and two 20mm gattling guns.  The Specter is used for precision air strikes and direct support of infantry and special forces ground operations.

Woods and Doherty were killed by a mortar strike at the CIA annex.  A battle raged there with CIA personnel calling for air support by a AC130U Specter gunship based at NAS Sigonella on Sicily 480 miles away.  Woods and Doherty were killed when a mortar shell hit their position.  CIA personnel manning a machine gun on the roof top informed their superiors by radio of the exact coordinates of the mortar shelling their position.   They had the mortar and its crew under direct observation the entire time.

Several military options appeared to be available to conduct rescue and security operations for the U.S. Mission and the CIA Annex. including at least three mission specific teams of special forces personnel, including members of Delta Force.  More U.S. Marine infantry resources were available at NAS Sigonella two hours away by C130.

Given the nature of the attacking forces, had American forces shown, the enemy would have departed the area.  The attackers were not military troops, but members of an Al Qaeda militia with poor training and light weapons consisting of AK47s, PPSH 57mm machine guns, RPGs, and at least one mortar.

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has been improperly deemed a Consulate.  The facility under attack did not rise to the level of a Consulate and was actually a U.S. Mission.  It has now been disclosed from various sources that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens mission was to facilitate the delivery of arms to various rebel factions.  Arms that were delivered through the auspices of the Qatar, Saudi Arabian, and Turkish governments.  The attack on the mission occurred just after the departure of a Turkish official who had dinner with Ambassador Stevens.

It has been alleged that Ambassador Stevens was dealing directly with the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Muslim groups to move arms into the hands of the various hard-line Islamist rebel groups operating in Libya.  Stevens was working with the Muslim Brotherhood to convey arms provided by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to radical Islamist rebel groups.

The CIA mission that Woods and Doherty were part of was charged with finding missing MANPADS, Russian SA-7 Grail man portable anti-aircraft missiles similar to the U.S. military's Stinger.  There are allegedly 20,000 Russian MANPAD missiles missing from Libyan military stockpiles.  The reason for the search is to account for these weapons to prevent them from being used against the U.S. military elsewhere in Africa, the Middle East and Africa.

Meanwhile, in the White House, Pentagon, and State Department, insulated from the death and destruction they were witnessing, Sec-State Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and SecDef Leon Pannetta began the spin that the attack was not what they were witnessing, but an act of 'spontaneous mob violence' over the Youtube video.  Even U.S. Ambassador to the U. N. Susan Rice was promoting this falsehood.  For whatever reason, the Obama Administration chose to lie about the Benghazi attack.  Perhaps to the hide the gun running mission of Ambassador Stevens in the face of "Fast and Furious"?

Who and at what level denied the American personnel under attack U.S. military assistance?  Who ordered the CIA personnel to 'stand down' three times during the fight, effectively acting to deny the Mission personnel under attack assistance until four brave men obeyed their conscience and oath and acted to go to the aid of their fellow Americans?  These men are true heroes.

Where was the U.S. military response during the attack?  SecDef Leon Panetta is now claiming that there was too little information to formulate a plan.  Instead, the Obama Administration let U.S. Sovereign territory, which the Mission was under international law, be violated with impunity by an Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist militia, resulting in the deaths of U.S. personnel without recourse, other than to say that those "responsible will be brought to justice", as if the attack was a convenience store robbery.

The President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense have much to answer for in their failure to act upon Ambassador Stevens multiple requests for increased security, for their failure to act upon the intelligence provided by the Libyan interim government with respect to the potential for an impending attack, for their failure to act during the attack to protect U.S. personnel, and for their outrageous lies in the aftermath.  The lie of the 'spontaneous mob' motivated by a Youtube video was carried forward two weeks post the September 11th attack in Benghazi.
 
Additional security personnel were cheap insurance, why were they denied? 

What was Ambassador Stevens doing running guns to Islamist radical groups?

Once again, accountability is being denied by this administration.  Yet, there are four dead whose deaths demand action. 

Crips in the Army at JBER

On August 11, 2012, a Segeant First Class (SFC, E-7) was eating at a mess hall on Ft. Richardson (JBER). A Staff Sergeant sitting with him, said "look at that, you seeing what I am seeing?" Both were in agreement as to what they had observed. A young Private First Class (PFC, E-2) sitting in an Army mess hall in an airborne T-shirt with what appeared to be pajama bottoms sagging below his butt. On his head was a cap that plainly stated on the sides: "Melborne CRIPS". The dress was an obvious insult to all who wear the uniform, but, more importantly, the display of gang sign or gang name is prohibited.

The SFC immediately rose from his table and approached the PFC. The PFC stood up. He answered the SFC's questions regarding rank, unit and what was being advertised on the side of his hat. While the PFC answered the questions, he never recognized the SFC's rank in his replies. The SFC told the PFC that his dress was inappropriate, demeaning and an insult to his fellow soldiers and to the Army. After recording the PFC's name, rank, unit and the PFC's First Sergeant's name, the SFC returned to his table and his soldiers.

The SFC is a Platoon Sergeant (PLS). He is a family man, and a veteran of the Iraq war. He is also a veteran of the USMC. I consider him to be an unimpeachable source.

In "my day", the PFC would never have been allowed in the mess hall dressed in such a insulting and cavalier manner. However, this is the new politically correct military, where gang affiliation openly displayed is ignored and dress that is insulting and demeaning both to the PFC, his fellow soldiers and to the U.S. Army is also ignored by his NCOs and officers.

The open display of gang affiliation should have resulted in an immediate contact with the Military Police.

For several years now, it has been reported in the Army Times, Military.com, and other military blogs that the presence of gang members within the military is increasing. It has been previously reported that gangs are using the military to recruit and as a training resource for their members. Where else can you send your people to get them trained in combat arms, and have them gain combat experience to boot?

That a PFC would have the audacity to display his true loyalties in a mess hall in front of other soldiers indicates a confidence that should not be. This is a disturbing development.

Joint Base Elemendorf Richardson has a problem with gang members in uniform. These individuals need to be rooted out before there is a clash between competing gang organizations that turns deadly. The Base Commander and unit commanders need to put their duty and responsibility both to their troops and the community first over gang members in uniform.

The Crips PFC needs to be discharged and sent home. He obviously enlisted under false pretenses.

Joint Base Elemendorf Richardson is located adjacent to the city of Anchorage.

Sarah Palin running for President?! NOOOOOOOO!!!!

I just read an article on Real Clear Politics that confirmed my worst fears. Sarah Palin is definitely going to make a run for the brass ring of the Presidency. This egotistical, paranoid, soap opera queen and failed governor of the GREAT STATE of ALASKA, this individual who stated time and again while running for that high office "This is the greatest job that I could have," and who promised that she would never leave that office for national office before her two potential terms were up . . . Sarah Palin would be a disaster as a President.

I worked for that campaign as a volunteer, I wrote in support of her campaign, I talked to people, I did what I could to support her in her race for governor. Sarah called me, I did not call her and volunteer.

When Sarah Palin took her oath of office, she closed the door to most of the peons like me, and on her promises regarding change and open, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, constitutional State government.

Her administration was characterized as being left to itself without clear leadership or direction from her. She did something none of us thought that she would do. Instead of a new start for State government as she campaigned on--the Palin Revolution, remember?--she rehired many of her predecessors' commissioners and appointees. She changed nothing. If anything, she muddied the waters of State government further.

Her theme of open and transparent government was a joke. Contact with her office was a trial, without much chance of any call being returned. I heard this again and again from people who tried to contact the governor’s offices for one reason or another and were told that their call would be returned, but never was.

I have personal experience with her administration's public access policies. Open and transparent? Anything but.

I understand that the commissioners were left to work out amongst themselves what they thought she wanted from them. Sarah Palin was described as being above details, and uninterested in anything other than what she was trying to accomplish at the moment. A recent interview with Walt Monaghan, the former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner under Palin, confirmed this characteristic of her administration. She was distant and aloof and out of touch with her commissioners.

As time went on, she increasingly made public appearances to respond to specious and idiotic attacks upon her family, character and ethics. Something she should have left out of her job as governor. It seemed she was making more retorts to these detractors than policy statements. Instead of hiring a publicist, attorney, attack dog, whatever, it was the governor's office that was dragged into the soap opera that was Governor Sarah Palin. She embarrassed us, and she acted immaturely, and foolishly by letting herself be swayed from her responsibilities as governor. She failed as a leader to keep the governor's office above the circus atmosphere, and, instead, used that office a bludgeon against those she did not like. The governor’s office was allowed to enter into the realm of a family feud between her sister and her former husband, an Alaska State Trooper.

Sarah is not a conservative. At best, she is a RINO with a great public persona who says all the right things, but shows her true colors in the record of her administration as governor.

Sarah Palin added 800 employees to the State of Alaska and oversaw the biggest expenditures since Statehood. She handed out a $1,200 fuel rebate to Alaskans in a shameless exhibition of pandering to the public with the public’s money. She expanded her cabinet to include a sub-cabinet that was devoted to . . . get this . . . climate change. She named the sub-cabinet the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet whose executive director was a federal EPA employee. According to her commissioner of DNR, and her Climate Change Sub-cabinet, global warming was a man-made problem.

Worse, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet composition was the antithesis of her claims of supporting the State's sovereignty over ever increasing federal encroachment.

It is difficult to believe that she really supported the State of Alaska's sovereignty as expressed under AS 38.05.500-505 when she let a federal employee act as management in her offices. Especially, when a single source contract for approximately $80,000 was let to Climate Change Strategies (CCS), a progressive, anti growth, anti-development, population control cookie cutter global warming consultant to give the liberals the tools that they needed to feel better about destroying an economy through carbon tax initiatives. CCS was contracted to set up and administer her sub-cabinet. Sarah Palin signed up the State as an observer in the Western Climate Initiative arm of this organization.

Sarah Palin a supporter of the Second Amendment and our military? Highly suspect, given what she ordered where the 32 USC §109(c) Alaska State Defense Force is concerned.

Sarah Palin was the first Republican Governor to reduce the military forces of the State of Alaska by disarming the Alaska State Defense Force and rendering it from an operational, disaster response unit with an outstanding record of achievement over eight years to that of an unarmed "reserve of last resort". In doing so, then Governor Sarah Palin ignored the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, AS 26.05.070, AS 26.05.100, and the intent of NGR 10-4 sec. 5 and sec. 6, something her Adjutant General, LTG Craig Campbell should have been most aware of.

Her zeal for diminishing the Alaska State Defense Force and thereby removing from the State’s disaster response resources a proven operational unit that was a state military police constabulary has only been exceeded by her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell. Both former Governor Sarah Palin and Governor Sean Parnell have shown an incredible indifference to the fact that by their actions against the Alaska Sate Defense Force that they have shown a complete disregard for the militia’s right to bear arms. They also demonstrate a callous disregard for the fact that unarmed troops cannot afford protection and safety to those whom they serve. Alaskans are less safe because of Sarah Palin’s acts against the Alaska State Defense Force.

In diminishing the military forces of the State of Alaska, then Gov. Sarah Palin, and Gov. Sean Parnell,her successor and her former Lt. Gov., both went against the Alaska Republican Party's plank in support of the military in Alaska:

“C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force.”

That this was done in a time of WAR should cause serious consternation on the part of any who might be considering Sarah Palin as qualified for the Presidency. That she stepped all over the Second Amendment and Alaska's constitution in doing so by diminishing the right of the organized and unorganized State militia to be armed should give cause to all who own weapons to worry about our Second Amendment rights if she actually achieves the presidency. That she did so during time of war should give considerable consernation to any who is concerned about the security of this great country.

Sarah Palin is not intellectually or politically qualified to be president. By intellectually, I mean that she has never studied or been interested in international affairs. Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she lacked the judgment necessary to weigh local and State issues concerning Alaskan much less weigh global issues against national interests. Sarah Palin failed miserably as the governor of the Great State of Alaska, as she did not even make it through her first term. She did not even make it two years into her administration. If Frank Bailey’s book has any truth to it, Sarah Palin can be characterized as a petulant, spoiled child who wanted to quit, because she could not stand the criticism.

You think criticizing Obama produces a spectacle, wait until Sarah Palin becomes President.

I have only seen one other as poor a candidate for the highest office. That one other is the communist and Muslim sympathizing, socialist, apologist heretic that is currently occupying the highest elected office of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama. A close second is former president James Carter.

Unfortunately, I personally believe that Sarah Palin as President would make Obama into a statesman by comparison.

That Sarah Palin just purchased a house in Scottsdale, Arizona for $1.695M is an indication of how much an Alaskan this woman really is.

Yeah, she is good looking and she says the right things that resonates with conservatives and most middle class family oriented, hard working Americans. However, that is all that Sarah Palin is and does. She is a mouthpiece and a lightning rod for the opposition.

Can you imagine her soap opera on national television with her as President? We would be more of a laughing stock than we are under Obama. She is worse than Obama where a sleight is concerned. She would rail publically against any who dared criticize.

Surely, we won't be that stupid to elect someone who is clearly unqualified for the presidency so soon after getting rid of the pretender that is now in that office?

The Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. There has to be a candidate that has a consistent record of fiscal and social conservatism, who will not compromise our Constitution and our social and moral values, who is not afraid to say that they are an American and that our culture is distinct, that English is our language, and who will not BOW to a foreign potentate, and who has the credentials to be President. Who, like Ronald Reagan will not place his/her ego above that of the country, and who will not only say the right things about America, but will act upon those words to make it so.

Sarah Palin is NOT that candidate.

Real Clear Politics piece on Palin:

DADT and the aftermath

The Senate decided to ignore the needs of the troops, the needs of our wounded in hospitals across the country, and the impact upon the services by forcing homosexual priorities upon the services. Why was the military chosen for this gay agenda goal? The military can be ordered to comply with no recourse for the individual soldier who is opposed, other than to resign.
There is no civil rights issue in this. Where is the prejudice against the homosexual soldier who does not openly flaunt their sexual proclivities?
What of the legal, religious, moral and morale issues associated with dealing with openly homosexual soldiers in one’s unit? Those issues are ignored. The secular state has decreed what is to be, and the military will obey . . . or else, the Joint Chiefs and others will be replaced with more amiable types who are more concerned about their careers than the troops’ concerns.
Art. 125 UCMJ
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Apparently, Art. 125 will be ignored from this point forward. Now, it will be every goat and sheep for themselves.
Yes, I recognize the contributions of homosexuals in the military. I remember that the most highly decorated enlisted airman in the USAF to serve in the Republic of Viet Nam was homosexual. Did his homosexuality make him brave? No, but his personal courage, his devotion to duty, to his country, and to his comrades gave him the ability to do what he did. He was a man who served honorably, nothing more, nothing less.
What is the problem, then with homosexuals serving openly in the military? Well, the idea of a homosexual in one’s unit, sharing one’s shower, the same latrine, the same dressing area, living area may make some uncomfortable. However, that is not the worst. The worst comes in two forms.
One is the second layer of DADT repeal. The political correctness will now be imposed. Penalties will be imposed for insulting homosexuals. Hate speech will become the lever to make a small minority much more powerful. The need to redress inequities in rank and position that do not now exist will be played out to the detriment of those more qualified. All of sudden, how good a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine will matter not. It will be “Congress says there must be X number of homosexual 1st LTs this promotion cycle, or we don’t get the new whiz bang Taliban thumper deluxe!”
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda will be to eliminate “hate speech” by military chaplains. The Bible says what it says. How that will be reconciled will resemble the Canadian solution. Censor the Bible . . . and the Koran.
Working one’s butt off to be the best that one can be will not count. I will bet you that whose butt the general has will. Sexual politics of the male female variety are one thing, but male on male or female on female will open up a whole new dimension to this age old problem. What was once the venue of rumor will now be in your face.
The playful slap on the back, shoulder or butt that is common amongst male soldiers at times will now be regarded from a new perspective.
Yes, sex will play a new role in the military.
Then, there is the second issue. The morality and religious convictions of those troops whose religion dictate the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. These individuals will have the unfair choice of not accepting the lifestyle and giving up their military career, or to accept knowing that they are accepting something that is an anathema to their religion.
The figures given in the Pentagon’s so called study were flawed, and those who did the study knew it. Only a small fraction of the Army personnel sent the survey responded. The majority response was by USAF and Navy personnel. The two ground combat arms, the Army and the Marines, were not in favor of any change to DADT. The impact upon combat units will not be favorable with the imposed change.
This is not a matter of civil rights where the color of one’s skin was concerned. With prejudice in treatment and advancement were visible. This is now a matter of individuals who had before the repeal the same right to promotion and benefits and who were not otherwise prejudiced by their conduct, so long as they did not proclaim their sexual preference openly, the same as any heterosexual soldier, airman, sailor or Marine. Now, things will change.
Only by fiat of the secular state can one be forced to choose between religion and one’s military service.
Uncle Sam’s military will never be the same. Now, there is another layer of privilege based upon sexual preference. Just what our soldiers needed instead of new equipment, better weapons, and better support after they get home, more political correctness that puts soldiering second and CYA first.
Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, this vote of yours will be remembered come reelection.

Pregnant Solidiers, a violation of disipline?

Yes.
It is.
Women who want out of duty and a war zone have an out no man has. Pregnancy.

In order to stem this dereliction of duty, Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III threatened courts martial for such breaches of discipline. And, yes, having sex with one's subordinates or fellow soldiers is a breach of discipline and a threat to unit moral, cohesiveness, and effectiveness. Lose enough troops to such, and one has a serious problem with completing one's mission.

The howl of the nags, as Limbaugh calls them, is incredible hypocrisy. Why, women getting pregnant is natural and should not be questioned. No joke. However, a combat zone and a military unit is not the corporate secretarial pool. Why according to these hypocrites, the female soldier is supposed to be able to use sex to cop out of their obligation to their fellow soldiers.

This ploy has been used effectively in the Navy to get out of protracted duty aboard ship. Hence, the rising number of single women who are parents in the military. Yet, they retain their rank and benefits. Same for their Army, Marine and USAF counterparts.

It has always been interesting to me that women can use sex and have no repercussions over responsibility for their actions, yet the male is held responsible for a pregnancy. I am 57 and I know who controls the sex between myself and my wife. I doubt that this situation is any different in the field with the female soldiers who are endangering the mission of their units by their promiscuity and selfishness in using pregnancy as a means to terminate their duty overseas, thereby leaving their male counterparts in the lurch.

Yes. a courts martial is appropriate for this conduct. It is cowardice and selfishness coupled with a lack of commitment to duty. These women swore an oath. Either do the job, or get the hell out of the military.

That the situation has deteriorated to the point that a unit commander has threatened courts martial to stem the tide of such behavior is incredible. It is also a demonstration that those who did not want females in combat units were correct after all. They do not belong on ships and they do not belong in a combat zone, except as nurses.

It is time that women bore the responsibility that their male counterparts bear. Or, that they admit that they want out and accept a discharge. That would certainly reduce the cost to the military for taking care of them and the product of their cowardice and lack of responsibility.

I believe that women should also bear 50% responsibility for any pregnancy with respect to the cost of bearing and rearing the child. The moron who acts in concert with a woman to achieve pregnancy, whether intended or not, should bear the other 50% of the cost of the child. The rest of us, should not bear any cost. The malarkey that the State should cover promiscuity in the face of free contraceptives is specious. Given this situation, the issue with women using pregnancy to get out of duty is not unexpected. The impact of the libs demanding no consequence for one's actions is now impacting the military negatively.

It is time we all took responsibility for our conduct. MG Cucolo III was correct in his holding the female accountable. Too bad he backed down.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

On 18 August, 2008, near Sarobi, Afghanistan, 10 French soldiers were killed. They had recently taken over security for the area from the Italian contingent to NATO for OEF.

The London Times is reporting a disturbing discovery. The Times alleges that the Italians were bribing the Taleban to keep them from attacking Italian construction crews and Italian troops in the area. This is an outrageous conduct on the part of one of NATO’s longest standing members.

The allegations claim that the French had no idea of the bribery to keep Italian troops safe before taking over security duties for the area. When the French troops took over, they were hit hard. The French troops thought they had inherited a relatively quiet area from the Italian’s experience there.

This is a very serious situation. NATO cannot have each contributing country making separate deals with the enemy to keep them from attacking their troops. That is simply traitorous in its scope and intent. Such conduct frees up the Taleban resources in that area for use against the rest of NATO’s forces fighting in their areas to rid Afghanistan of the Taleban’s insanity.

Surely the Italians realized that the monies paid would be used to buy arms and IED components to use against their brothers in arms?

An investigation needs to be undertaken at the highest levels of government. If Italy had a policy to bribe the enemy, then Italy should be forced to pay reparations for all NATO troops killed and wounded during the period their troops were protected by bribes to the enemy. Further, whomever authorized this policy should face trial as a traitor, and be imprisoned for life. Any Italian military who were aware of this policy should face courts martial, and imprisoned for their dishonorable conduct. One cannot fight a war in which one’s trusted allies are buying off the enemy.

Worse to me, as reported in the Washington Times, is the fact that our government has taken $2,600,000,000 ($2.6B) from our military budget that was to be used to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, it was reappropriated to feel good projects, such as a Teddy Kennedy Educational Institute for $20,000,000. How much ammunition, equipment, medical supplies, helicopters and spares parts for helicopters could this money have purchased?

On the one hand, we have the Italians bribing the big bad Taleban to leave their troops unharmed. On the other, we have the Obama Administration and its socialist Congress stealing from the defense budget to pay off special interests.

Anyone with a loved one in the military should contact their congressman and the Obama Administration and demand they restore the soldiers’ funding. Cutting the military’s ability to support our troops is simply insane. In that vein, the Italians’ duplicity and the Obama Administration’s failure to support our troops serve the same purpose. This conduct degrades NATO’s ability to wage a war and gives the enemy comfort and solace in the knowledge that the Western governments lack the will to see the conflict through.

How long before the radical Muslim element gets lucky and we are hit again, as on 9-11? Not as if they are not trying, given the recent revelations about CAIR and its association with HAMAS, and the conspiracies broken up by the FBI.

Yet, Obama/Pelosi/Reid et al are going hell bent for leather to establish the U.S. as a socialist state while short sheeting our troops in the field. It can be said that the Italians were just trying to mitigate casualties and avoid controversy at home. By cutting money out of the budget intended for necessary supplies and training, Obama et al have acted with open eyes to endanger our troops in a time of war.

Trying to cheat ATG vets

UPDATE: The U.S. Senate passed a new military appropriations bill including a provision that will allow ATG service to be counted towards the 20 year total federal military service pension requirements. Of the 600 former ATG soldiers still alive, only 26 were eligible. The 26 had enough regular military and reserve time for their ATG time to count towards the 20 years.

The Obama Administration is now showing the liberal contempt for those who served.
In WWII, Alaska was the only U.S. territory occupied by a foreign power.

In the early days of the war, a group of volunteers were organized into the Alaska Territorial Guard (ATG) to patrol, protect and serve Alaska. The ATG comprised 6,600 men from 1942 to 1947, the year it was disbanded. The ATG patch is still worn today by the Alaska State Defense Force.

Alaska at the time was a territory, not a State. A distinction seemingly not understood by the Obama Administration.

Under COL Muktuk Marston, these men patrolled Alaska's coasts, broke trails, and did construction work for the U.S. war effort, and served to protect Alaska.

The pension issue arrises over the recognition by the federal goverment that the time served in the ATG counts as military time towards one's 20 year service requirement to collect a pension. For the remaining 26 men, now 25, as one died while this was being prepared, this recognition was bittersweet victory after so many years of not being recognized.

The DOD agreed that these men would receive military pensions starting this year, with the State of Alaska picking up the initial few months until the federal payments began. The Palin Administration went to bat for these veterans and achieved recognition by DOD for their service. Unfortunately, Pres. Obama's Administration reversed its decision and renegged on the earlier decision.

Like the Statehood Compact, ANILCA, and so many other examples of the federal government going back on its word or simply ignoring its promises to Alaskans, once again, Alaskans get the short end of the stick.

Those on active duty with the United States military need to pay heed to what happened to Alaska's ATG veterans.

Napolitano's priorities and concerns

On 7 April, the new DHS Secretary sent out a document to local law enforcement across the United States titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
Those included in the focus of an ever expanding concern on the part of our federal internal security establishment are returning troops. Our military!
This fear on the part of our government includes those who are concerned about government intrusion into our lives, those who believe in State’s rights (10th Amendment), citizens who lawfully purchase weapons, Christians, those who oppose abortion, those concerned about illegal immigration, and white supremacist militias.
Right wing, white supremacist militias.
The bug aboo of the Clinton years.
I kind of resent being included in a list that includes white supremacists. I note that only ‘white’ is of concern, not La Raza or other non-white, anti-government and racist supremacist groups.
Where is the concern about Rev. Wright and his flock? They certainly bear watching with his racist, militant, anti-government rhetoric. Gee, and one of his flock made it to the White House. . . .
I guess in Napolitano’s DHS, color is a limiting factor in the ability to pose a threat to the security of the U.S. Does the referenced document imply that those of color lack the ability to pose a threat?
The justification for the troops included as people of concern? Tim McVeigh.
In 2008, less than 1% of 23,000 returning troops joined radical groups after leaving the military.
Has Napolitano been to Walter Reed and seen what our vets have given?
Does she know of the sacrifice of the families of our soldiers?
How about those families who gave all they could? Their son, daughter, daddy, uncle, cousin, on and on. What does she think that Gold Star means?
She dares question their loyalty and patriotism?
Who is encompassed by this document?
Anyone who: is a patriot, a Christian, is outspoken, is concerned about government overreaching, believes in State’s rights, is a serving member of the military returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, a veteran, is concerned about the sanctity of life, is concerned over the scourge of illegal immigration, is concerned about the continued assault on the Constitution, feel that their first loyalty is to their State.
That is definitely me. I am an Alaskan. My order of loyalty is God, family, State, country. I swore an oath defend the Constitution of the Untied States that I still hold as my first duty to my country.
How is it that our government distrusts most of us, but allows a religion and organizations that openly advocate the destruction of the United States?
I guess that the 1st Amendment is selectively applied in this case, because Islam and organizations such as La Raza provide a counter point to our culture, Constitution, and Christianity, values that the libs and radicals on the left openly abhor.
Unfortunately, this is also a case of our liberal element playing with fire.
We have so many divisive elements in the U.S., because the U.S. government no longer encourages assimilation to mitigate the ties to homeland and culture. Assimilation is evil to the lib social agenda, but diversity, read divisiveness, is good for us.
Déjà vu with the latest Homeland Security notification to law enforcement. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, late as the Governor of the State of Arizona, has outdone the Clinton paranoia over militias and evangelicals. She now includes returning troops in an ever growing list of potential subversives.
This is a case of ignoring the obvious and the dems pursuing their agenda of anti-American culture, and socialism at any cost.
I have nothing but contempt for government officials who are afraid of our returning military heroes.
Given DHS’ priorities, I hope Janet Napolitano likes her burkha.
I guess to her, our Founding Fathers are all terrorists who should have been on a British watch list.

Alaska's Natural Gas and Oil can benefit the U.S., or not.

Former Gov. Walter Hickel wrote an editorial in another paper that tried to demonstrate that there was a basis for an all-Alaska pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez. His premise was that Red China, and I mean RED China must be acknowledged as a potential player in any future natural gas market for Alaska natural gas. His editorial was also critical of the Palin Administration backing of the only AGIA applicant, Trans-Canada, a Canadian company that has proposed a 4.5 billion cubic feet per day natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe through Canada to the U.S. market.

He quoted Sen. Charlie Huggins as holding to the philosophy of positive engagement through world trade rather than exclusion as the route to economic prosperity and peace.

Red China, or the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Japan and the rest of Asia are heavily dependent upon imported fuels and natural gas. These economies are in competition with Europe for the world’s oil and natural gas.

The principle suppliers of oil and natural gas being the Middle East, Russia, and Indonesia.

Brazil may become an oil exporting nation, provided the recent discoveries off the coast can be developed.

I agree with the need in Asia for Alaska NG, which is just part of the justification for an all-Alaska NG pipeline to Valdez. The fact that NG is exported from Nikkiski is a demonstration of the viability of the Asian market. A market that Alaska could certainly develop. However, I agree only if the U.S. continues to be stupid and refuse Alaska gas and oil development to ease dependence upon foreign oil and natural gas.

Alaska, as a sovereign State in the Union of States should have the opportunity to develop its resources to benefit Alaska, if the U.S. fails to understand that the primary desire of Alaskans is for our oil and natural gas to be used to benefit the U.S. first, and foreign markets second.

It has always been a paradox as to why natural gas was being exported to Japan from Cook Inlet reserves by LNG tanker, but Alaska could not develop its North Slope reserves to ship to U.S. markets by LNG tanker?

Were all of Alaska’s NG produced exported to foreign markets, Alaska could reasonably export by LNG tanker up to 4.5bcf per day, or the expected import of foreign NG into the U.S. market.

Alaska’s NG would most certainly affect the U. S. market by displacing largely imported Middle Eastern NG, and, because of competition, result in a lower price to the U.S. consumer of natural gas. A situation unremarked by the Producers in any discussion of marketing Alaska’s natural gas.

It is this displacement of foreign natural gas being imported at exorbitant prices into the U.S. market that is the dream of every Alaskan. Not just the benefits to the State: jobs, infrastructure, income, and, if a portion of the liquids are retained, industry from those liquids.

The energy policy of the U.S. can be viewed as insane on one level, and shrewd on another. If we suck the Middle East dry of oil and gas, then, we eventually eliminate the benefit of the income provided to those oligarchies who then contribute to the jihadis that want nothing more than to kill us infidels. On the other hand, we are paying high prices for oil and gas that is funding our enemies. That is the insane part, especially in the face of ANWR, off shore, and U.S. and Canadian oil and gas potential. Alaska could supply the 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day that will be imported from Qattar, Indonesia, and Saudia Arabia by the end of 2012. Alaska’s natural gas reserves would completely displace Middle Eastern supplies.

Let the PRC buy those Middle East supplies and also take in the thousand of young wahabbist Saudis that now come into the U.S. under the deal brokered by G.H. Bush along with the $50 million spent each year by the Sauds to build new mosques in the U.S.

Somehow, we (the U.S.) are expected to absorb this burgeoning 5th column of Islam and continue on without any affect upon our economy or society. I would think the pictures of police carrying fully automatic M16s and HK MP5 variants in full body armor would clue someone that this policy is costing us. Especially since most of the hijackers who commandeered the jets on 9-11 were Saudis. This shortsightedness has cost the U.S. billions and will continue to cost us billions to keep the threat of now home grown jihadis in check. Yet, we still import oil and gas from the Middle East to fuel this hate.

The U.S. has more coal than anywhere in the world. Under the North Slope of Alaska is a high grade, low sulfer bituminous coal. It is my understanding that this field extends across most of the North Slope. Add that to the U.S. reserves, and there is no raw material shortage for fuel or gas.

The U.S. military is pioneering the development of new coal to diesel and kerosene jet fuels for aircraft. This is an extremely promising development in my mind and a significant policy shift. The question is, will the Obama Administration allow these projects to go forward?

Off shore reserves of oil and gas are just now being realized. New technologies in drilling and production are making deep sea recovery possible. The large reserves off of Brazil are an indication that oil exploration is far from over on the continental shelves around the world. Off of Israel new gas reserves verify this, even in the Mediterranean.

Unfortunately, Obama is now considering one again denying off shore development.

Yes, Alaska can send its hydrocarbon resources elsewhere, if necessary. Or, Alaska can contribute to the reduction of the impact of foreign oil and natural gas to the detriment of our security, economy, and culture. Alaska’s hydrocarbon resources can fuel Red China, a burgeoning enemy, or the U.S.

Your decision.

National Energy Policy

Like Winnie the Pooh, who ignores the obvious, the United States of America is slowly declining into straits that would be familiar to the second and third world.

It is recognized that there is growing pressure on the power grids of America. In California the highest power demand ever was recorded at 5.3 gigawatts as a result of the recent high temperatures. 20 small California communities suffered rolling blackouts as power was shuffled to keep Los Angeles residents’ air conditioners functioning.

Fuel prices continue to skyrocket, which will result in accelerated inflation until demand, speculation, and supply stabilize.

Unlike, Europe and Japan, our gas prices have more to do with the lack of refining capacity than government taxes. The U.S. national tax on motor fuels is 24 cents per gallon for diesel and 18 cents per gallon for gasoline. E.U. taxes are a minimum of $.42 EU per liter. This is amounts to a rough equivalent of $1.68 per U.S. gallon for taxes in the EU.

For those who believe motor fuels costs in the U.S. should be as high as it is Europe or Japan, that means increasing taxes on motor fuels by up to at least 5-8 times over the current level of taxation.

There is a potential answer to this energy dilemma that you will not hear about in the main stream media. The United States Air Force is working to wean the USAF off of fuel refined from foreign oil to support domestic training and operations.

The USAF is building a pilot refinery to convert coal to fuel and another to convert bio sources to fuel. Were these refineries to be proposed on private lands, they would be opposed by the nimby crowd and the eco freaks. Law suits would blossom in the courts as prolific as dandelions in a Spring lawn. Fortunately, the USAF showed some intelligence in its planning and provided for the location of these facilities on its own military reservations.

The largest landholder in the U.S. is government at every level.

Military reservations can become a haven for new refineries and new power plants.

It would be logical for the military to provide for its own needs by reducing dependence and competition with the civilian market for fuel sources.

Coal fired power plants can be built, new coal to fuel conversion plants can built, and new nuke power plants can be built on government lands. Either on military reservations exclusively, or upon government lands away from population centers, but within the surface transportation infrastructure and within the electrical power grid infrastructure.


To meet the needs of the U.S. in general, the use of other government lands could provide locations for the refining and power generation infrastructure necessary for the civilian market.

What it would take to ensure the success of such an initiative to prevent the U.S. from degenerating into a third rate power, is a mandate from the President authorizing the various branches of the U.S. military to utilize military lands for the installation of power plants and refineries in order to become independent of foreign oil using the USAF model. That is the first step.

The next step is for the President to declare a national emergency and to prioritize increased energy generation capacity and fuel refining capacity to resolve the looming energy crisis. The President could do this by authorizing the utilization of government lands to be leased to power companies and leased to companies desiring to build large scale refineries and fuel conversion facilities. Lands that would be reasonably situated, lands that would not require decades of impact studies before construction could begin.

The courts have been the tool of those who desire the U.S. to be less. By making this a national emergency/defense issue, the courts would no longer play spoiler.

The cost of fuel is high in the United States for one basic reason. Refining capacity in the U.S. has been artificially limited by those in this country who put their own interests above that of the nation. There is plenty of oil. Oil supply is not the underlying problem.

There is no doubt that between developing coal to fuel conversion capacity, tar sands development, increasing nuclear power generation capacity, lifting the ban on oil and gas drilling off the coast of the U.S., opening ANWR to oil and gas development, and constructing a natural gas pipeline to bring Alaska’s natural gas to market in the U.S., that the United States would eventually be in the enviable position to virtually eliminate foreign oil and natural gas dependence.

Nuclear power generation would free natural gas for home heating, fuel cell, and other uses, by reducing the need for natural gas for power generation.

To remove the need for foreign oil would also reduce rising tensions in the world over the supply of that oil.

Increasing power generation capacity reduces the cost of power, and should favorably impact the economics associated with hydrogen generation, and electric automobiles. Reducing cost of power should accelerate the introduction of these alternatives.

Seems to me, the nimbys and the eco freaks would figure this out.

I am not advocating money. Just a means to provide the land upon which to build the infrastructure to keep this country from becoming less and less by reducing the opportunity for sabotage through the courts of needed new refineries and power plants.

The USAF has shown the way.