"A nation's best defense is an educated citizenry" - Thomas Jefferson ------- Our enemy is coming again and we must be prepared ... our worst must be better than their best! – The Center for Strategic Information Application (CSIA) provides focused news - occasional analysis and interpretation ---- Recommended searches "absolutely" -"must read" - "troubling" - "9/11" - "jihad" - "sharia" - "Federal Reserve" - "Sibel".
The news released last Friday – Friday being a popular day to dump negative or unpopular news because most Americans are thinking ahead to the weekend – was that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are no longer to be referred to as “enemy combatants:”
The Obama administration stopped calling Guantanamo inmates "enemy combatants" on Friday and incorporated international law as its basis for holding the prisoners while it works to close the facility.
papers outlining a further legal and linguistic shift from the anti-terrorism policies of Republican President George W. Bush, which drew worldwide condemnation as violations of human rights and international law.
"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
Finally, a president who takes international law into account when considering the sovereignty and safety of American citizens! What’s good for, say, Germany, must be good for America, right? Especially when it comes to Germany’s milquetoastattempts to stem radical Islam in that nation. As Obama said in his official address to Berlin…er, speech by a private citizen during the campaign last July, “Ich bin ein Berliner!” I had no idea he would take his own rhetoric so seriously.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum, however: European leaders may like the fact that Obama is planning on closing what Rush Limbaugh calls Club Gitmo, but they aren’t rushing to take the enemy combatants (since I don’t work for the government, I can get away with calling them by their rightful names) off of our hands, either. So much for the improved relations with European bureauweenies once The One™ replaced the cowboy.
I am curious to know what Attorney General Eric Holder meant, though, when he talked about how we should “govern detainees.” Since when are people suspected of killing or plotting to kill American citizens at home and abroad in the name of Islamic Jihad to be governed? Perhaps he meant to say “control detainees.” His boss must have been using the teleprompter that day.
But wait, there’s more:
The filing on Friday, in the cases of some 200 Guantanamo inmates seeking a court review of their detention, explains the standards of President Barack Obama's administration for holding terrorism suspects without court review.
It said those at Guantanamo will no longer be held on the exclusive basis of the president's authority as commander in chief.
On his radio show last Friday evening, Mark Levin wondered:
“If the commander in chief of the armed forces can’t use the phrase ‘enemy combatant’ because he needs Congress to tell him it’s okay, or he needs some international law from the Hague or somewhere to tell him it’s okay, what the hell is that? Now, the guy’s power hungry when it comes to controlling domestic affairs, and when it comes to foreign affairs he can’t wait to give the executive’s power away?”
That’s a good question. But as Andrew McCarthy points out, the administration had to be seen as doing something to appease the far-left base that helped sweep Obama into office:
Obama wants to have the advantage of — and take credit for the security provided by — the Bush post-9/11 policies. However, he has a rabid left-wing base that rejects the notion that there is a war and wants terrorism returned to the courts (and by the way, if/when that happens, that base will immediately go back to arguing that the court proceedings are inherently unfair, which is what it did for the eight years before 9/11). Throughout the campaign, Obama stirred this base — which consequently voted in droves for him — by trashing the policies he now wants to leave in place. So now he is in a quandary: "How do I keep these policies while preventing a revolt from these crazy people — er, I mean, my voters?"
[…]
Essentially, we're no longer going to call our captives "enemy combatants" ... but we're still going to detain people without trial, and Obama claims the unilateral authority to decide who gets detained.
In other words, having seen what’s actually at stake, Obama doesn’t want to act too rashly, but he has to keep stirring up batches of fresh Kool Aid for the faithful until he can figure out what the heck he’s doing. And whether he really knows what he’s doing is questionable at best, considering the success of the first 50 or so days in office.
We still don’t know what the Obama administration plans to call these detainees. Here are a few suggestions:
Undocumented freedom fighters (shamelessly stolen from Andrew McCarthy)
Regardless of the real intention behind this change in wording, how is such public wishy washiness to be viewed by our enemies? Let’s look at some of the highlights thus far:
Somehow, I don’t think the Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese and other assorted terror entities are quaking in their boots. In fact, I think I hear champagne flutes clinking.
I saw a t-shirt with Obama’s face on it that said “Welcome Back Carter.” Slap on a cardigan and he’s just about there. Can our nation’s security afford what some are calling the second Carter administration? My guess is no. But I hope I’m wrong.
Advice From Murtha Allies Guided Funding Requests, Documents Show
A Pennsylvania defense research center regularly consulted with two "handlers" close to Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) as it collected nearly $250 million in federal funding through the lawmaker, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and sources familiar with the funding requests. The center then channeled a significant portion of the funding to companies that were among Murtha's campaign supporters.
The two advisers included a lobbyist for PMA Group, a firm with close ties to Murtha that is the subject of a federal investigation into whether it made illegal contributions by reimbursing donors to the Pennsylvania lawmaker and other members of Congress. The Electro-Optics Center also relied on advice from a longtime Murtha friend who now works on the congressman's appropriations staff.
Federal agents are also exploring how the center obtained its funds after they received dozens of internal documents last year. It is unclear whether the records have become a central focus of the Justice Department's probe, but they open a window into a largely hidden process in which powerful lawmakers can direct funds to pet projects.
The Electro-Optics Center, created by Murtha a decade ago under the auspices of Pennsylvania State University, was envisioned as a way to spur a new high-tech industry and create jobs in economically depressed western Pennsylvania. Last year, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh received a packet of budget materials, memos and e-mails from inside the center documenting how closely its managers conferred with PMA about the best ways to get its projects funded in the federal budget, according to two sources familiar with the information.
The center was supposed to help contractors in researching laser and optics technology to improve products for the military, and center officials said contractors were supposed to benefit from some of the federal funds.
Unlike in traditional earmarks -- funding for specific projects publicly requested by members of Congress -- most of the money for the center came through a budget maneuver known as a "plus-up." The process for this kind of earmark allows lawmakers to add money to an existing program in the budget without public disclosure. The center sought $120 million in this type of money for itself and other companies in 2006 alone, according to the records.
Several of the center's partners hired PMA for lobbying. In the 2008 budget, PMA clients received $299 million in defense earmarks through Murtha and other lawmakers. PMA and its clients gave $775,000 in contributions to Murtha in the last election cycle.
A PMA lobbyist and a close associate of Murtha's helped make many key decisions about what research and which contractors would get the federal money flowing to the center, according to the documents.
Typically, the center's director, Karl Harris, worked with the lobbyist to prepare funding wish lists, which were described in some of the records as "requests for Mr. Murtha to carry." The requests were sent to the congressman's staff, according to the records. The lists detailed how much, and where in the budget, money should be added for projects desired by the center and the contractors.
According to center records and two sources, Harris consulted regularly on the center's overall funding requests with the two men he jokingly referred to in the office as his "handlers": the PMA lobbyist, Daniel Cunningham, and Murtha friend Charlie T. Horner.Cunningham, who golfed with Murtha and occasionally drove him home to Pennsylvania from Washington, was part of the lobbying firm formed by former Murtha aide Paul Magliocchetti. Horner, a former veteran and Defense Department official, was a paid consultant for Electro-Optics, as well as for Lockheed Martin.
Harris did not return calls, but his staff referred questions to Penn State. Edward Liszka, the university's head of defense-related research, said the university was very involved in reviewing the center's research work and doubts that a PMA lobbyist played any significant role. The university receives a percentage of the center's research funds for administration, and Liska said that is a routine arrangement for academic institutions.
Patrick Dorton, a PMA spokesman, said Cunningham occasionally consulted with Harris to provide correct information about PMA clients.
The records show how the center planned to distribute money it received for some research projects. For a $2.5 million optical sensor project, for example, $1.8 million would be split between Boeing-SVS and Kuchera Industries. Kuchera, a Windber, Pa., company that has received $50 million in earmarks from Murtha, is a focus of the ongoing federal investigation, according to sources familiar with the probe. Company representatives have said Kuchera will not comment on the investigation.
Thomas Spellissy, a former Defense Department budget official who once worked as a consultant for Optical Systems Technology Inc., one of the companies that received funding through Electro-Optics, said he regularly fielded Murtha's requests for "plus-ups" when he was at the Defense Department. The vast majority, he said, were good projects that helped U.S. troops in the field. In some cases, however, this type of earmark wastes money, he said, but it was not feasible for him to turn them down.
"A staffer for a congressman says, 'I need you to accept this money for sensors, a couple million,' " Spellissy said. "If I said no, he can turn around and say I won't support you on this other thing you really want. I could say no -- then his boss calls the general to complain about me."
"Mr. Cunningham's review of the requests compiled by the EO Center was intended to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information pertaining to the projects for which PMA clients were seeking funding consideration," Dorton said. Matt Mazonkey, a spokesman for Murtha's office, said the EOC has received no earmarks since Horner joined Murtha's staff last spring. He declined to comment on how the center received its funding but said the congressman is proud of its work.
"The Penn State Electro-Optics Center has created an alliance of over 350 companies and universities that the government can quickly tap to rapidly respond to emerging needs within electro-optics," he said. "This successful partnership has saved the Defense Department over $1 billion in just the past few years."
Liszka also cited the savings for the government and called the center "a leader in electro-optics technology."
Each year, Harris prepared long spreadsheets that included detailed descriptions of desired projects and how they should be funded in the budget -- which line item, through which federal department and the specific dollar amount, the records show. The documents also described whether the center or a defense company would receive the funding, and gave the name and number of the Defense Department budget official the center should contact to make sure the money was delivered.
The requests for funding for specific contractors often highlighted the company's lobbying firm. The names of PMA lobbyists and contact numbers, for example, are noted next to requests for three of the companies.
In addition to the $80 million the center requested for itself in 2006, it submitted $40 million in projects described as "company requests of Mr. Murtha via the EOC" -- corporate funds that were to come first to the center. Of that, $30 million was listed to benefit Northrop Grumman, mostly to support its work on aviator night-vision goggles.
Northrop Grumman spokesman Randy Belote said his company had partnered with the EOC in some night-vision research but had not asked any lawmakers for funding for the projects.
ANN ARBOR, MI – Late this morning, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals sitting in Washington DC, released their unanimous decision upholding the dismissal of charges against Marine Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of apparent Unlawful Command Influence.But the case may not be over yet.
For the last four years, LtCol Chessani has been investigated and prosecuted for his involvement in the so called “Haditha Massacre” – a massacre that never happened. A 22-year veteran, Chessani has served three tours of duty in Iraq. He served in the First Persian Gulf War and in Panama. At the time of the November 19, 2005 Haditha incident, he was the Battalion Commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (“The Thundering Third”) – one of the most decorated units in the history of the Marine Corps.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, “LtCol Chessani, one of the most effective combat commanders we had in Iraq, was a made political scapegoat by the civilians in the Pentagon to appease the antiwar politicians and a liberal media. In fact, we now know that the story of the ‘massacre’ that prompted the Haditha prosecutions was a headline in a Time news article instigated by insurgent propaganda operatives.”
Continued Thompson, “This nation has come to the point where we can’t call terrorists captured on the battlefield ‘enemy combatants.’ We release the terrorists out of Guantanamo and prosecute the military our country placed in harms’ way to defend us.” Robert Muise, an attorney with the Law Center, a national public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, argued the case on behalf of LtCol Chessani. The Law Center has been defending LtCol Chessani throughout his prosecution alongside his detailed Marine lawyers, LtCol John Shelburne and Captain Jeff King. Captain Kyle Kilian, a Marine appellate defense lawyer, also assisted in the appeal.
LtCol Chessani is the highest ranking officer facing criminal charges as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described “Haditha massacre.” The criminal charges against him stem from a legitimate combat action taken by four enlisted Marines in his command after they were ambushed by insurgents in Haditha, Iraq, on November 19, 2005. Their actions resulted in the deaths of several ambushing insurgents. Unfortunately and tragically, several civilians were also killed in the house-clearing operation.
Even though LtCol Chessani wasn’t present during the incident, he was criminally charged with failing to launch a full investigation into the incident. If convicted, he faces 2 ½ years imprisonment, dismissal from the Corps, and loss of all of his retirement pay.
The essential holding of the military appellate court was as follows: “We are convinced the Government failed to meet its burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the proceedings were untainted by the appearance of UCI (Unlawful Command Influence). We are similarly convinced that an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, would harbor significant doubt about the fairness of this proceeding.”
This decision could be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and then even to the U.S. Supreme Court. The government has yet to announce whether it will pursue another appeal.
The Thomas More Law Center defends America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell
WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.
"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."
The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"
Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans AffairsEric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."
Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.
"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.
"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" -- Muhammad
"My imam father came after me with an axe," by Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times, March 15 (thanks to all who sent this in): Sharia
We are all too familiar with the persecution of Christians in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet sitting in front of me is a British woman whose life has been threatened in this country solely because she is a Christian. Indeed, so real is the threat that the book she has written about her experiences has had to appear under an assumed name.
The book is called The Imam’s Daughter because “Hannah Shah” is just that: the daughter of an imam in one of the tight-knit Deobandi Muslim Pakistani communities in the north of England. Her father emigrated to this country from rural Pakistan some time in the 1960s and is, apparently, a highly respected local figure.
He is also an incestuous child abuser, repeatedly raping his daughter from the age of five until she was 15, ostensibly as part of her punishment for being “disobedient”. At the age of 16 she fled her family to avoid the forced marriage they had planned for her in Pakistan. A much, much greater affront to “honour” in her family’s eyes, however, was the fact that she then became a Christian – an apostate. The Koran is explicit that apostasy is punishable by death; thus it was that her father the imam led a 40-strong gang – in the middle of a British city – to find and kill her.
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.." -- Qur'an 4:89
Hannah Shah says her story is not unique – that there are many other girls in British Muslim families who are oppressed and married off against their will, or who have secretly become Christians but are too afraid to speak out. She wants their voices to be heard and for Britain, the land of her birth, to realise the hidden misery of these women....
As time passes and the events of September 11th become more distant, the voices of America's political-correctness orthodoxy have increased their volume and intensity. They now feel safe in questioning Homeland Security tactics to combat terrorism and are attempting to turn public opinion against law-enforcement leaders.
A major weapon in their arsenal is the accusation of racial profiling by US police and security forces. Another weapon in the war against the war on terrorism is the distortions made regarding the Patriot Act. When one considers the risks to lives and property posed by terrorists, political correctness has now become a weapon of mass destruction.
Most clear thinking Americans were shocked when 9-11 Commission member and former US Secretary of the Navy John Lehman revealed a disturbing fact: the Federal Aviation Administration will be hitting American airlines with stiff penalties for even the appearance of any racial profiling of Middle-Easterners. One airline paid out a huge sum of money to Arab males who filed law suits alleging racial profiling, as well. Yet none of this appeared in the commission's final report.
This leaves many law-enforcement officers incredulously asking: what kind of terrorism war is this? It seems national security and public safety are taking a back-seat to political correctness which in turn thwarts our efforts to detect terrorists and their accomplices.
The National Association of Chiefs of Police's annual survey of our nation's police commanders and security directors provides evidence of our insane infatuation with the politically-correct orthodoxy. The survey reveals that almost 60 percent of police departments enforce a written policy prohibiting so-called racial profiling. At the same time, the survey shows that 88 percent of American police and security executives believe our homeland will suffer a terrorist attack within the next year.
Many Americans even hoped that the 9-11 Commission Report would reveal how political correctness — in many cases, a euphemism for left-wing ideology — contributed to the worst terrorist attack in US history. It did not. Some of the same people complaining about the CIA and FBI deficiencies are the people responsible for handcuffing law enforcement and intelligence officers in the first place.
In fact, some in Congress and on the 2008 presidential campaign trail were guilty of having it both ways: they supported the heavily partisan 9-11 Commission and at the same time opposed the Patriot Act, in spite of the law's opponents' inability to provide evidence of even one case where the Patriot Act infringed on American citizens' civil liberties. Their favorite tool for putting law-enforcement leaders — and the politicos who support them — on the defensive is to make allegations of profiling.
Criminal Profiling is a law-enforcement tool with a history that began in the early 1980s. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Behavioral Sciences Unit developed the first profile for a serial-killer (which by the way indicated a white male among its criteria). Then, according to former-FBI special agent Robert Ressler, the BSU created profiles for other categories of crime including terrorism. Through the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, local law-enforcement officers were provided instruction in profiling, which they brought back to their respective police agencies.
Any cop worth his salt will tell you that criminal profiling remains a work-in-progress. As law enforcement learns more about the criminal mind and criminal characteristics, these profiles will continue to be revised. But will there be any need for such research and development if cops are prohibited from using this tool?
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's the former blog editor for the House Conservatives Fund's weblog. Recently, the editors at Examiner.com appointed him as their Law Enforcement Examiner. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for NewswithViews.com and PHXnews.com. He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 300 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. If you wish to receive Kouri's emailed law enforcement and intelligence reports, write to him at COPmagazine@aol.com. Simply write "Free Subscription" on the subject line.
(Compiler's note: A must read & consider article.)
By Chelsea Schilling A revolution is brewing as American patriots and advocates of the free-market system unite in protest against out-of-control government spending – with a wildfire movement of more than 150 nationwide tea parties.
John M. O'Hara of The Heartland Institute is a member of New American Tea Party, a coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about reckless government spending, is helping coordinate a number of national tea party events.
"Our message is simple: 'Bailing out' reckless businesses and individuals is neither the burden of responsible, hard-working American taxpayers nor the role of government," he told WND.
O'Hara said there is no question the United States is facing tough economic times, but he believes many politicians are not proposing serious solutions.
"The Congressional Budget Office and countless economists say that the recent 'stimulus' packages will likely hinder, not help, our economy," he said. "Tax cuts, not tax hikes and handouts, are the quickest, most efficient means of getting our economy back on track."
O'Hara said legislators must listen to citizens who are tired of irresponsible policies so the nation can recover.
"It is time politicians heed the will of the American people and the clear signals coming from the financial sector: stop the excessive spending, cut taxes, and get out of the way. Only then will we unleash the resilient, entrepreneurial spirit of American's that has made our nation great and which will propel us through this rough patch to more prosperous times ahead.
The New American Tea Party website states, "This isn't a conservative or liberal thing. This is about government forking over billions of dollars, our money, to businesses that should have failed. This is about taking money from responsible people and handing it over to CEOs who squandered their own."
Another organization, the Political Exploration and Awareness Committee, or PEACPAC, formed a website known as ReTeaParty and accepts tea party registrations from across the nation. It also provides detailed information on how to organize tea parties and posts photos of the events.
Tax Day Tea Party, a national collaborative grassroots effort organized by Smart Girl Politics, Top Conservatives on Twitter, the DontGo Movement and many other online groups, is also promoting the events.
WND has also launched its own tea party forum so citizens may exchange ideas, information and announcements about the "revolution." After reviewing various protest listings, WND found more than 150 tea parties scheduled for upcoming months. They include the following:
Birmingham, Ala. – Wednesday, April 15, from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at Veteran Park on Highway 17 Valledale Road
Huntsville, Ala. – Wednesday, April 15, 12 p.m. to 1 p.m., location to be announced
Decatur, Ala. – Saturday, March 28, at the Rhodes Ferry Park, (also known as River Park)
Mobile, Ala. – Wednesday, April 15, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. at the USS Alabama battleship
Montgomery, Ala. – Wednesday, April 15, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the Alabama Statehouse located at 11 South Union Street
Phoenix, Ariz. – Wednesday, April 15, at 6 p.m. at capitol building
Tucson, Ariz. – Wednesday, April 15, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. in front of Joel D. Valdez Main Library on 101 N. Stone Ave.
Mountain Home, Ark. – Wednesday, April 15, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., location to be announced
WASHINGTON: The protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are forcing the administration of President Barack Obama to rethink what for more than two decades has been a central premise of American strategy: that the nation need only prepare to fight two major wars at a time.
For more than six years now, the United States has in fact been fighting two wars, with more than 170,000 troops now deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The military has openly acknowledged that the wars have left troops and equipment severely strained and has said that it would be difficult to carry out any kind of significant operation elsewhere.
To some extent, fears have faded that the United States may actually have to fight, say, Russia and North Korea, or China and Iran, at the same time. But if Iraq and Afghanistan were never formidable foes in conventional terms, they have already tied up the American military for a period longer than World War II.
A senior Defense Department official involved in a strategy review now under way said that the Pentagon was absorbing the lesson that the kinds of counterinsurgency campaigns likely to be part of some future wars would require more staying power than in past conflicts, like the first Gulf War in 1991, or the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989.
In an interview with National Public Radio last week, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates made it clear that the Pentagon was beginning to reconsider whether the old two-wars assumption "makes any sense in the 21st century" as a guide to planning, budgeting and weapons buying.
The discussion is being prompted by a top-to-bottom strategy review that the Pentagon conducts every four years, as required by Congress and officially called the Quadrennial Defense Review. One question on the table for Pentagon planners is whether there is a way to reshape the armed forces to provide for more flexibility in tackling a wide range of conflicts.
Among other questions are the extent to which planning for conflicts should focus primarily on counterinsurgency wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what focus remains on well-equipped conventional adversaries like China and Iran, with which U.S. Navy vessels have clashed at sea.
Thomas Donnelly, a defense policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he believed that the Obama administration would be seeking to come up with "a multiwar, multioperation, multifront, walk-and-chew-gum construct."
"We have to do many things simultaneously if our goal is to remain the ultimate guarantor of international security," Mr. Donnelly said. "The hedge against a rising China requires a very different kind of force than fighting an irregular war in Afghanistan or invading Iraq or building partnership capacity in Africa."
But Mr. Donnelly cautioned that the review now under way faced a familiar challenge. "If there has been one consistent thread through all previous defense reviews," he said, "it is that once the review is done, there is an almost immediate gap between reality and force planning. Reality always exceeds force planning."
It already is obvious, a senior Pentagon official said, that the Defense Department will "need to rebalance our strategy and our forces" in a way that reflects lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, a liberal-centrist policy organization, said that senior Pentagon officials knew that the new review needed to more fully analyze what the rest of the government could bring to national security.
"We have Gates and others saying that other parts of the government are under-resourced" and that the Department of Defense should not be called on to do everything, Mr. O'Hanlon said. "That's a good starting point for this — to ask and at least begin answering where it might be better to have other parts of the government get stronger and do a bigger share, rather than the Department of Defense."
Among the refinements to the two-wars strategy the Pentagon has incorporated in recent years is one known as "win-hold-win" — an assumption that if two wars broke out simultaneously, the more threatening conflict would get the bulk of American forces while the military would have to defend along a second front until reinforcements could arrive to finish the job.
Another formulation envisioned the United States defending its territory, deterring hostility in four critical areas of the world and then defeating two adversaries in major combat operations, but not at exactly the same time.
The most recent strategy of the administration of George W. Bush, completed four years ago, added requirements that the military be equipped to deal with a broad range of missions in addition to war-fighting, including defeating violent extremists, defending U.S. territory, helping countries at strategic crossroads and preventing terrorists and adversaries from obtaining biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
But Pentagon officials are now asking whether the current reality of Iraq and Afghanistan really fits any of those models.
BEIJING (AP) - China's premier expressed concern Friday about its massive holdings of Treasuries and other U.S. debt, appealing to Washington to safeguard their value, and said Beijing is ready to expand its stimulus if the economy worsens.
Premier Wen Jiabao noted that Beijing is the biggest foreign creditor to the United States and called on Washington to see that its response to the global slowdown does not damage the value of Chinese holdings.
"We have made a huge amount of loans to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said at a news conference following the closing of China's annual legislative session. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."
Wen's comments foreshadowed possible appeals to President Barack Obama, who will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao at a London summit of leaders of the G-20 group of major economies on April 2 to discuss the global financial crisis.
Analysts estimate that nearly half of China's $2 trillion in currency reserves are in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government-affiliated agencies.
Washington is counting on China to continue buying Treasuries to fund its $787 billion stimulus package. Last month, visiting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reassure Beijing that government debt would remain a reliable investment.
"They are worried about forever-rising deficits, which may devalue Treasuries by pushing interest rates higher," said JP Morgan economist Frank Gong. "Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries."
The comments come as finance ministers and central bankers of the G-20 gather in London this weekend to discuss the crisis and possible remedies.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is pressing for a new coordinated stimulus but European governments are reluctant to take on more debt before they see how current plans are working. The Europeans want to emphasize the need for greater regulation of markets, including a crackdown on tax havens and increased control over hedge funds.
In Beijing, Wen expressed confidence China can emerge from its slump "at an early date," and said the government is ready to expand its 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus to boost growth in the world's third-largest economy.
Communist leaders worry about rising job losses and possible unrest amid a trade slump that saw Chinese exports fall 25.7 percent in February from a year earlier. They have promised to spend heavily to create jobs and boost exports.
"We already have our plans ready to tackle even more difficult times, and to do that we have reserved adequate ammunition," Wen said. "That means that at any time we can introduce new stimulus policies."
In nearby Japan, Prime Minister Taro Aso called Friday for a fresh stimulus to help lift the world's second-largest economy out of "an unprecedented economic crisis." The comments helped spark a rally in Japan's stock market, where the Nikkei 225 stock index surged 5.2 percent.
China's Wen and other officials point to rising bank lending, power demand and other signs the stimulus is taking effect. But growth in retail sales is weakening, suggesting it has yet to spur private sector spending and investment, which analysts say will be key to its success.
Wen said Beijing can meet its 2009 growth target of 8 percent, despite skepticism by private sector economists, who expect as little as 5 percent. That would be the strongest of any major country but could lead to more waves of job cuts.
"I really believe we will be able to walk out of the shadow of the financial crisis at an early date," he said. "After this trial, I believe the Chinese economy will show greater vitality."
The premier promised to focus on job creation and give more help to smaller companies, which he said generate 90 percent of Chinese new employment.
"We will pay all attention possible to this issue and we will never overlook this issue," he said.
Wen said Beijing wants the London summit to focus on the plight of poor countries.
"We must see to it that we show concern for developing countries, and help developing countries - the least-developed ones in particular - become an important topic on the agenda," he said.
(CNSNews.com) - On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicilty bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996. ....
(CNSNews.com) - On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicilty bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996. ....
An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise.
Oneida, Ky. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.
Why is this going to happen?
1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.
The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap ofbelieving in a cause more than a faith.
2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.
3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.
4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.
5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.
6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.
7. The money will dry up.
What will be left?
•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.
•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.
•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.
•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.
•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.
•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?
•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.
Is all of this a bad thing?
Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?
Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.
Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.
The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.
Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.
Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.
Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.
The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.
Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."
We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.
We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.
I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?
Posts
