The big national parks in Montana are an obvious boon to our state’s economy, bringing in several million visitors each year. It’s important to realize that the National Park Service is responsible for maintaining much more than the big draws like Glacier and Yellowstone — the agency also manages over 150 sites of military significance around the country, including some here in Montana. Our military memorials in Montana need maintenance.
Military sites account for one-third of NPS units, including national battlefields, military cemeteries, battlegrounds, and fortifications where the agency preserves and interprets our history. And like many of the units in the National Park System, most of these sites of military significance are deteriorating due to a lack of maintenance funding.
In Montana, the Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, and Big Hole National Battlefield are all maintained by the NPS. Unfortunately, each of these sites has amassed a significant amount of deferred maintenance as federal funding for needed repairs has been unreliable.
The NPS uses the term deferred maintenance to categorize any needed repairs that are delayed, sometimes for years, because there is no money to pay for them. It’s become a growing problem for NPS as visitation to national parks has been soaring during the past few years and the facilities used to accommodate them can be 50 years or older. The growing strains on national parks are beginning to show, and eventually could have an impact on their desirability as vacation destinations due to accessibility and safety concerns.
At Little Bighorn Battlefield alone, NPS has estimated the amount of deferred maintenance at nearly $10 million. Some of the big ticket items are what you would expect NPS to need in interpreting a large battlefield site: repairs to drinking and waste water systems at the visitor center, access roads to monuments and trails, and parking lots.
In addition, though, difficult-to-replace aspects of the site itself are in disrepair due to lack of maintenance. The battlefield landscape, trails through the site, interpretative media, and monuments commemorating those who fought there are all on the NPS deferred maintenance inventory. The NPS does the best it can to prioritize what can be repaired on any given year, but does not have the resources to address all it should.
This is a growing problem that needs to be addressed. The deferred maintenance backlog for NPS in 2016 was estimated at $11.3 billion. For national parks in Montana, that figure is over $250 million.
Allowing that maintenance to go undone year after year has obvious consequences, and eventually could lead to a downturn in visitations. But beyond the important economic boost NPS provides, these sites have important historical significance for Montanans that is well worth preserving.
And with one of the largest veteran populations in the country, Montana values its military history. So as we remember our veterans, let’s all take a moment to encourage our congressional delegation to seek a long-term solution to the deferred maintenance funding shortfall that has plagued NPS for too long. We need them to provide dedicated annual federal funding for national park repairs.
These parks, battlefields, and historic sites are treasures to all Montanans, and vital to preserving our heritage. Let’s make sure they’re taken care of.
“Joint U.S.- Mexican Border Security Zone to Secure America”
MG Paul E. Vallely (US Army Ret)
The unfettered movement of transnational criminals, Islamic extremists and illegal border crossers across our porous southern border poses a clear and immediate national security threat.
The sophistication of the illicit networks that traffic in narcotics, foment terror and exploit human suffering for profit have exceeded our current ability to protect the homeland.
We must continue to be vigilant, but adopt a more aggressive, offense-oriented border strategy. You cannot win and defeat this national threat by being on defense all the time using limited assets and restrictive rules of engagement.
In fact, the federal government has not yet formulated a comprehensive and integrated National Border Security Strategy, which, in addition to law enforcement brings to bear all the instruments of national power – diplomatic, intelligence, military and economic – and coordinated by a single command and control system spanning our southern land border and ports of entry.
It is now time to truly enforce the rule-of-law along our southern borders – no more excuses, no more delays, no more politics, no more kowtowing to special interest groups, or claims by open-border advocates.
The fact is that the Citizens of the USA are in daily danger and are being killed or families harmed because the border states of Mexico are controlled by thugs and terrorists copying Jihad tactics of mayhem and murder. Once again, the entire region is festooned with upheaval, violence, and lawlessness as it was in 1846.
The northern states in Mexico; Baja California Norte, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas are under rogue control, and the Mexican Police and Army are helpless to stop them.
It is, therefore, in the national interest of the United States and the responsibility of the federal government to restore order on the border as well across our borders. Because of this clear and present danger to US Citizens and our economy, positive action must be taken without further delay.
Let me provide an executable plan of operations for the U.S. Government to undertake with resolve and commitment to protect and secure the American people for now and the future.
The plan uses elements of conventional and unconventional military and law enforcement assets. It combines the best use of already-existing forces that will encompass intelligence, targeting and structural organization to accomplish the mission, including base operations, offensive and defensive operations.
A 20 mile “Control Zone” on the US and Mexican side of the border will be established. Any group or persons occupying this zone engaging in criminal or illegal activities against Mexico or the United States would be targeted, engaged and neutralized.
The first step is to organize three Joint Border Task Force Groups (JBTFG) and position them in three operational bases, one in Texas, one in Arizona and another in Southern California. These bases have been identified but will be kept confidential for now. Each JBTFG will be organized based on joint task forces of Special Ops, Army, Air Force and Navy. Selected units and personal will be relocated and moved to the designated bases. A Joint Operations Center will be established for US and Mexican personnel.
Approximately 5,000 military personnel would be assigned to each JBTFG. The organization would be commanded by a Two Star “Warrior” and each of the three JBTFGs would be commanded by a Brigadier General. The mission for the military element of the Command would be to target and conduct offensive operations on the Mexican side of the border in coordination with Mexican authorities, when possible. National Guard, Border Patrol, DEA, and local sheriff’s units would conduct border security operations on the United States side of the border. This initiative does not violate any existing Posse Comitatus laws.
Integrated operations will be conducted with the National Guard on the border states as well as US Border Patrol and DEA.
The concerns and anxiety of Americans, particularly in the Border States have grown significantly in the past year. Changes in law enforcement operations have forced smugglers of drugs and illegal aliens into ever more isolated areas, increasing the number of deaths and the level of violence to a point where even the most hardened enforcement officials are alarmed.
The political ferment over illegals has never been greater – much concern as the result of the Kate Steinle murder verdict in San Francisco Seventy-eight percent of Americans think and know that the government is not doing enough to control our borders; talk shows bristle with demands for action. Additionally, Global jihad and jihadis are a major threat as they eye the southern border as a path of least resistance to strike inside the United States.
This plan will be presented to President Trump and the National Security Council
Full transcript of White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly’s statement concerning President Donald Trump’s call to the widow of a U.S. Army soldier recently killed during a counter terror operation in Niger:
JOHN F. KELLY, White House chief of staff: Well, thanks a lot. And it is a more serious note, so I just wanted to perhaps make more of a statement than an — give more of an explanation in what amounts to be a traditional press interaction.
Most Americans don’t know what happens when we lose one of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, our Coast Guardsmen in combat. So let me tell you what happens:
Their buddies wrap them up in whatever passes as a shroud, puts them on a helicopter as a routine, and sends them home. Their first stop along the way is when they’re packed in ice, typically at the airhead. And then they’re flown to, usually, Europe where they’re then packed in ice again and flown to Dover Air Force Base, where Dover takes care of the remains, embalms them, meticulously dresses them in their uniform with the medals that they’ve earned, the emblems of their service, and then puts them on another airplane linked up with a casualty officer escort that takes them home.
A very, very good movie to watch, if you haven’t ever seen it, is “Taking Chance,” where this is done in a movie — HBO setting. Chance Phelps was killed under my command right next to me, and it’s worth seeing that if you’ve never seen it.
So that’s the process. While that’s happening, a casualty officer typically goes to the home very early in the morning and waits for the first lights to come on. And then he knocks on the door; typically a mom and dad will answer, a wife. And if there is a wife, this is happening in two different places; if the parents are divorced, three different places. And the casualty officer proceeds to break the heart of a family member and stays with that family until — well, for a long, long time, even after the internment. So that’s what happens.
Who are these young men and women? They are the best 1 percent this country produces. Most of you, as Americans, don’t know them. Many of you don’t know anyone who knows any one of them. But they are the very best this country produces, and they volunteer to protect our country when there’s nothing in our country anymore that seems to suggest that selfless service to the nation is not only appropriate, but required. But that’s all right.
Who writes letters to the families? Typically, the company commander — in my case, as a Marine — the company commander, battalion commander, regimental commander, division commander, Secretary of Defense, typically the service chief, commandant of the Marine Corps, and the President typically writes a letter.
Typically, the only phone calls a family receives are the most important phone calls they could imagine, and that is from their buddies. In my case, hours after my son was killed, his friends were calling us from Afghanistan, telling us what a great guy he was. Those are the only phone calls that really mattered.
And yeah, the letters count, to a degree, but there’s not much that really can take the edge off what a family member is going through.
So some Presidents have elected to call. All Presidents, I believe, have elected to send letters. If you elect to call a family like this, it is about the most difficult thing you could imagine. There’s no perfect way to make that phone call.
When I took this job and talked to President Trump about how to do it, my first recommendation was he not do it because it’s not the phone call that parents, family members are looking forward to. It’s nice to do, in my opinion, in any event.
He asked me about previous Presidents, and I said, I can tell you that President Obama, who was my Commander-in-Chief when I was on active duty, did not call my family. That was not a criticism. That was just to simply say, I don’t believe President Obama called. That’s not a negative thing. I don’t believe President Bush called in all cases. I don’t believe any President, particularly when the casualty rates are very, very high — that Presidents call. But I believe they all write.
So when I gave that explanation to our President three days ago, he elected to make phone calls in the cases of four young men who we lost in Niger at the earlier part of this month. But then he said, how do you make these calls? If you’re not in the family, if you’ve never worn the uniform, if you’ve never been in combat, you can’t even imagine how to make that call. I think he very bravely does make those calls.
The call in question that he made yesterday — or day before yesterday now — were to four family members, the four fallen. And remember, there’s a next-of-kin designated by the individual. If he’s married, that’s typically the spouse. If he’s not married, that’s typically the parents unless the parents are divorced, and then he selects one of them. If he didn’t get along with his parents, he’ll select a sibling. But the point is, the phone call is made to the next-of-kin only if the next-of-kin agrees to take the phone call. Sometimes they don’t.
So a pre-call is made: The President of the United States or the commandant of the Marine Corps, or someone would like to call, will you accept the call? And typically, they all accept the call.
So he called four people the other day and expressed his condolences in the best way that he could. And he said to me, what do I say? I said to him, sir, there’s nothing you can do to lighten the burden on these families.
Well, let me tell you what I told him. Let me tell you what my best friend, Joe Dunford, told me — because he was my casualty officer. He said, Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1 percent. He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war. And when he died, in the four cases we’re talking about, Niger, and my son’s case in Afghanistan — when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on this Earth: his friends.
That’s what the President tried to say to four families the other day. I was stunned when I came to work yesterday morning, and brokenhearted at what I saw a member of Congress doing. A member of Congress who listened in on a phone call from the President of the United States to a young wife, and in his way tried to express that opinion — that he’s a brave man, a fallen hero, he knew what he was getting himself into because he enlisted. There’s no reason to enlist; he enlisted. And he was where he wanted to be, exactly where he wanted to be, with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken.
That was the message. That was the message that was transmitted.
It stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation. Absolutely stuns me. And I thought at least that was sacred. You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor. That’s obviously not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. Life — the dignity of life — is sacred. That’s gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well.
Gold Star families, I think that left in the convention over the summer. But I just thought — the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred.
And when I listened to this woman and what she was saying, and what she was doing on TV, the only thing I could do to collect my thoughts was to go and walk among the finest men and women on this Earth. And you can always find them because they’re in Arlington National Cemetery. I went over there for an hour-and-a-half, walked among the stones, some of whom I put there because they were doing what I told them to do when they were killed.
I’ll end with this: In October — April, rather, of 2015, I was still on active duty, and I went to the dedication of the new FBI field office in Miami. And it was dedicated to two men who were killed in a firefight in Miami against drug traffickers in 1986 — a guy by the name of Grogan and Duke. Grogan almost retired, 53 years old; Duke, I think less than a year on the job. (Editor’s note: The F.B.I. agent for which the building is named was named Jerry L. Dove, not Duke.)
Anyways, they got in a gunfight and they were killed. Three other FBI agents were there, were wounded, and now retired. So we go down — Jim Comey gave an absolutely brilliant memorial speech to those fallen men and to all of the men and women of the FBI who serve our country so well, and law enforcement so well.
There were family members there. Some of the children that were there were three or four years old when their dads were killed on that street in Miami-Dade. Three of the men that survived the fight were there, and gave a rendition of how brave those men were and how they gave their lives.
And a congresswoman stood up, and in the long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there and all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call he gave the money — the $20 million — to build the building. And she sat down, and we were stunned. Stunned that she had done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned.
But, you know, none of us went to the press and criticized. None of us stood up and were appalled. We just said, O.K., fine.
So I still hope, as you write your stories, and I appeal to America, that let’s not let this maybe last thing that’s held sacred in our society — a young man, young woman going out and giving his or her life for our country — let’s try to somehow keep that sacred. But it eroded a great deal yesterday by the selfish behavior of a member of Congress.
So I’m willing to take a question or two on this topic. Let me ask you this: Is anyone here a Gold Star parent or sibling? Does anyone here know a Gold Star parent or sibling?
O.K., you get the question.
Q Well, thank you, General Kelly. First of all, we have a great deal of respect — Semper Fi — for everything that you’ve ever done. But if we could take this a bit further. Why were they in Niger? We were told they weren’t in armored vehicles and there was no air cover. So what are the specifics about this particular incident? And why were we there? And why are we there?
GENERAL KELLY: Well, I would start by saying there is an investigation. Let me back up and say, the fact of the matter is, young men and women that wear our uniform are deployed around the world and there are tens of thousands, near the DMZ in North Korea [sic], in Okinawa, waiting to go — in South Korea — in Okinawa, ready to go. All over the United States, training, ready to go. They’re all over Latin America. Down there, they do mostly drug and addiction, working with our partners — our great partners — the Colombians, the Central Americans, the Mexicans.
You know, there’s thousands. My own son, right now, back in the fight for his fifth tour against ISIS. There’s thousands of them in Europe acting as a deterrent. And they’re throughout Africa. And they’re doing the nation’s work there, and not making a lot of money, by the way, doing it. They love what they do.
So why were they there? They’re there working with partners, local — all across Africa — in this case, Niger — working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights; teaching them how to fight ISIS so that we don’t have to send our soldiers and Marines there in their thousands. That’s what they were doing there.
Now, there is an investigation. There’s always an — unless it’s a very, very conventional death in a conventional war, there’s always an investigation. Of course, that operation is conducted by AFRICOM that, of course, works directly for the Secretary of Defense.
There is a — and I talked to Jim Mattis this morning. I think he made statements this afternoon. There’s an investigation ongoing. An investigation doesn’t mean anything was wrong. An investigation doesn’t mean people’s heads are going to roll. The fact is they need to find out what happened and why it happened.
But at the end of the day, ladies and gentlemen, you have to understand that these young people — sometimes old guys — put on the uniform, go to where we send them to protect our country. Sometimes they go in large numbers to invade Iraq and invade Afghanistan. Sometimes they’re working in small units, working with our partners in Africa, Asia, Latin America, helping them be better.
But at the end of the day, they’re helping those partners be better at fighting ISIS in North Africa to protect our country so that we don’t have to send large numbers of troops.
Any other — someone who knows a Gold Star fallen person.
Q General, thank you for being here today and thank you for your service and for your family’s sacrifice. There has been some talk about the timetable of the release of the statement about the — I think at that point it was three soldiers who were killed in Niger. Can you walk us through the timetable of the release of that information? And what part did the fact that a beacon was pinging during that time have to do with the release of the statement? And were you concerned that divulging information early might jeopardize the soldiers’ attempt to be (inaudible)?
GENERAL KELLY: First of all, that’s a — you know, we are at the highest level of the U.S. government. The people that will answer those questions will be the people at the other end of the military pyramid.
I’m sure the Special Forces group is conducting it. I know they’re conducting an investigation. That investigation, of course, under the auspices of AFRICOM, ultimately will go to the Pentagon. I’ve read the same stories you have. I actually know a lot more than I’m letting on, but I’m not going to tell you.
There is an investigation being done. But as I say, the men and women of our country that are serving all around the world — I mean, what the hell is my son doing back in the fight? He’s back in the fight because — working with Iraqi soldiers who are infinitely better than they were a few years ago to take ISIS on directly so that we don’t have to do it. Small numbers of Marines where he is working alongside those guys. That’s why they’re out there, whether it’s Niger, Iraq, or whatever. We don’t want to send tens of thousands of American soldiers and Marines, in particular, to go fight.
I’ll take one more, but it’s got to be from someone who knows — all right.
Q General, when you talk about Niger, sir, what does your intelligence tell you about the Russian connection with them? And the stories that are coming out now, they’re —
GENERAL KELLY: I have no knowledge of any Russian connection, but I was not, in my position, to know that. That’s a question for NORTHCOM or for — not NORTHCOM — for AFRICOM or DOD.
Thanks very much, everybody.
As I walk off the stage, understand there’s tens of thousands of American kids, mostly, doing their nation’s bidding all around the world. They don’t have to be in uniform. You know, when I was a kid, every man in my life was a veteran — World War II, Korea, and there was the draft. These young people today, they don’t do it for any other reason than their selfless — sense of selfless devotion to this great nation.
We don’t look down upon those of you who that haven’t served. In fact, in a way we’re a little bit sorry because you’ll have never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kinds of things our service men and women do — not for any other reason than they love this country. So just think of that.
Looks like General Caslen and others are missing the 5 9’s reliability.
A letter to:
Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen, Jr.
U.S. Military Academy, West Point
Dear General Caslen,
I have just read your long letter prompted by the Rapone affair. I have
also a lot to write about the situation.
First, I am not pleased with LTC Heffington’s story in his affidavit. In my
day no officer would have deigned to argue with a cadet, even a First
Classman. He would have simply told the cadet to return to his room. If
the cadet disobeyed he would have called the Officer of the Day to have the
cadet physically moved to his room. And he would have written up the cadet
for disobeying the direct order of a superior officer, plus disrespect to an
officer and being out of uniform. LTC Heffington may well lament the rot in
the administration and training of cadets, but he obviously was a part of
Second, why was no investigation begun in November 2015 based upon LTC
Heffington’s affidavit? Regardless of what the investigation would have
concluded, the fact that none was initiated is another example of the rot
that is permeating the USMA. Somebody simply decided to pass the problem
along to the Army. In addition, why was he allowed to graduate? As a
professed Communist he could not truthfully have sworn allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States. Yet he apparently lied and did. His
views were known and yet he was permitted to commit perjury.
Third, you write “While we do not compromise standards, we are a
developmental institution.” When did West Point become a “developmental
institution? What does that even mean? West Point was created in order to
furnish standard-setting, career officers for the United States Army. And
it did that job well until the latter half of the twentieth century. And it
accomplished its mission on an “attritional” and a “zero tolerance” basis.
What does “developmental” mean? Maybe it means that a cadet can be caught
lying twice, but if he is caught lying a third time, i.e., he has not
“developed”, he will be sent before the Honor Board, that may even decide
the cadet needs a little more “development” and gives him three more
chances. I remember that when I was a plebe, and maybe even my first day, I
was made to understand that lying or quibbling was not allowed and would
mean rapid dismissal. Maybe “development” means being able to discuss an
order given by a superior officer. Rot! Maybe “developmental” means that
an upper classman inspecting a plebe in ranks (if such a thing is still
tolerated) says “Mister, your shoeshine looks better today than yesterday,
but it still needs some work. So, try to do better tomorrow.” Rot!
Fourth, you write, “These changes have increased the realism, toughness, and
challenge of our developmental programs, resulting in the most capable and
confident young leaders of character that we have ever produced”. This is
gratuitously denigrating all previous graduates. Do I need to remind you
that previous classes produced leaders that saved this country more than
once. Your statement is pure PR. How can you possibly know that the
present generation of cadets are “the most capable and confident”? Have you
conducted any objective survey? Furthermore, the mission of West Point is
not to produce capable and confident second lieutenants. Its mission is to
produce the men and women who will lead the Army in the future. They should
be trained not to be second lieutenants, but future colonels and general
officers. At the 70th Reunion of my class last May you addressed all the
reunion classes. I took the opportunity to ask you what was the average
recent percentage of graduates who remain in the Army beyond their 5 year
commitment. You evaded replying to my question by stating that it was as
high as that of ROTC graduates. You seemed to be satisfied with that level.
It is not good enough. Graduates of the USMA are meant to set the standards
for the discipline and conduct of the personnel in the United States Army.
But if a graduate serves only his/her five years, his/her impact on the
standards of the Army is minimal to nil.
Fifth, you make a big deal of the ratings various publications give West
Point as a university. West Point is not a university. It is a school to
train standard-setting, career U.S. Army officers. Incidentally, cadets
receive a university-level education. You should care more about how many
of the graduates remain for a career in the Army than that such-and such a
publication ranks the USMA #? as a liberal arts/engineering/whatever
university. The same goes for athletics. Can you tell me that the
standards for admission are not today warped/waived in order to bring in a
star athlete? Can you tell me that special academic assistance is not given
to members of Corps Squads, particularly football. Can you tell me that
every prospective cadet must take a written exam and, good athlete or not,
must pass it in order to be allowed to enter?
Sixth, you make a big deal of having intercollegiate athletic teams with an
overall record of .590. So what! West Point was never supposed to be an
athletic powerhouse. I don’t believe the MacArthur quote that used to be
engraved over the entrance to the gym meant intercollegiate athletics, in
which only a small minority of the cadets participate. I believe it
referred to intramural athletics. I am all for intramural athletics. I
firmly believe that there is too much emphasis placed today on
intercollegiate athletics at West Point.
Seventh, you make a big deal about decorations recent graduates have
received. What about second lieutenants out of OCS or ROTC? Didn’t they
get any? Did they get less ? Maybe, because they weren’t “developed”.
Maybe, because they performed less well. Heroism is not a virtue exclusive
to West Point. What was once upon a time exclusive was the commitment to
graduate standard-setting career officers. This OCS and ROTC do not and
cannot do. OCS and ROTC base their standards, or at least they used to, on
those of graduates of West Point.
Eighth, you make a big deal that some recent graduates have been assigned to
divisions overseas. Where have you been? What’s so uplifting about that?
Every member of my class after finishing his branch Officers Basic Course
was assigned overseas-everyone. No big deal.
Ninth, I graduated under the previous so-called “attritional” and “zero
tolerance” system (as did all classes up to at least 1966. See Rick
Atkinson’s “The Long Gray Line”, the story of the Class of 1966). I
“developed” from a boy to a man on my own. Nobody gave a damn whether I
“developed”. I was expected from the first day to live up to the standards
of the Military Academy. It was up to me in meeting them to “develop”
myself. I seriously doubt that any of your “best and brightest” could even
have lasted through my plebe year.
Lastly, this letter started because of Second Lieutenant Rapone. Obviously
he didn’t “develop” as well as he should have.. How many more cadets are
being graduated under the “developmental” system who do not come up to what
have been the traditional standards of West Point: Duty, Honor, Country?
How many cadets are being graduated who have no intention, and never had any
intention, of being career Army officers / I doubt seriously that the
American taxpayer would be overjoyed to realize that he/she is paying,
what?, a half million dollars to give somebody a university education so
that he/she can leave the Army as quickly as possible and go into a
money-making civilian career. Although if there are a number of Rapones
whom you allow to graduate, it’s in the Army’s interest that they get out
Benjamin L. Landis
“Benjamin L. Landis retired from the U.S. Army as a colonel after a 27-year career that included service with the Military Assistance Advisory Group at the U.S. embassy in Paris and as Senior U.S. Liaison Officer with the French Forces in Germany. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and the French Army Ecole d’ Etat-Major, and has an MSA from The George Washington University. After retirement, he was Director of Administration and Finance for several major law firms in Washington. He is the author of Searching For Stability: The World in the Twenty-First Century.”
“How are people graduating from West Point so radicalized? Users on /pol/ think they may have found the answer: Professor Rasheed Hosein,” they tweeted.
After visiting his grandpa’s grave in Redding, California, and realizing that not every veteran in the cemetery had a flag, 11-year-old Preston Sharp decided to change that. He took on odd jobs and solicited donations to buy flags and flowers for every veteran in his grandpa’s cemetery and beyond.
America First Million Member Sign-Up
Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution, our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.