Bill To Get U.S. Out Of UN Introduced in House

Editor’s Note – The United States is responsible for almost one quarter of the U.N.’s funding and taxpayers have the pleasure of supporting some of our biggest enemies, and those of our allies, most especially Israel.

The “Dictators Club” is rife with rip-offs, fraud, and scandals that reach back decades, yet we furnish the location as well.

We could not agree more with Rep. Mike Rogers, R-AL for filing legislation to leave the UN and in our opinion, move the entire operation to some place in West Africa where Ebola is rife.U.N.me_poster

How about a stellar member of the “Community of Nations” like Zimbabwe where scandal is the common sport of people like Robert Mugabe. Remember the “Oil for Food” program/scandal for Iraq under Saddam Hussein and former Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali?

How about those sexual abuse scandals, or the perennial money abyss of UNRWA in Gaza, and its complicity with Hamas?

Then there are all those commissions, like the human rights scandals and the hypocritical way Israel is always targeted and how the UN always works against American interests and rights!

It is worthy to once again view the movie “U.N. Me” by Ami Horowitz.

The movie exposes many of the scandals and is a MUST SEE if you have not seen it yet. After you review it, call your Congressman to support Rep. Rogers’ bill.

The list goes on and on, ship it out!

Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN

By Alex Newman – The New American

Citing wasted tax dollars and attacks on the constitutionally guaranteed liberties of the American people, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) introduced a bill to restore U.S. sovereignty and withdraw from the United Nations.

The effort to de-fund and exit the UN comes amid growing scrutiny of the global organization, often ridiculed as the “dictators club,” and myriad mega-scandals swirling around it.

However, despite ever-growing support in Congress for restoring U.S. sovereignty by withdrawing from the UN over the years, the legislation still faces an uphill battle.

In a statement last week announcing the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015 (H.R. 1205), Rep. Rogers noted that many of his constituents in East Alabama would likely agree with his position that U.S. government participation in the UN should end immediately.

“The U.N. continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars,” the congressman said, echoing widespread concerns about the international outfit expressed across America and worldwide.

“Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world?” asked Rep. Rogers. “The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.” He cited attacks on U.S. liberties as a key motivation for the legislation.

Several other liberty-minded congressmen have also sponsored the legislation including constitutionalist Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), and Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.).

A previous bill to withdraw from the UN introduced in the last Congress by then-Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) garnered nine co-sponsors. With the regime ruling Communist China increasingly taking a leading role at the UN, among numerous other concerns, opposition to the global body is expected to continue growing.

Get-Us-Out.635

If approved, the legislation would repeal the UN Participation Act of 1945 and shutter the U.S. government’s mission to the outfit. It would also “terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.”

That specifically includes UNESCO, which President Ronald Reagan withdrew from, along with the World Health Organization, the UN Environment Program (UNEP), and more. It would end all U.S. involvement in all UN conventions and agreements, too.

The proposed law, introduced in numerous legislative session of Congress in recent decades, would also end all funding to the UN and all of its agencies — with the estimated savings to taxpayers reaching into the billions per year, and potentially even more.

The legislation also aims to end all U.S. military involvement in UN military “peacekeeping” schemes and ban U.S. troops from serving under UN command. Finally, the bill would seek to evict the UN and its dictator-infested headquarters from U.S. soil.

It would also ban any use of American government facilities by the global outfit, while stripping UN bureaucrats and dignitaries of diplomatic immunity.

Rep. Rogers pointed to a wide range of reasons why the U.S. should dump the UN. “Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack our rights as U.S. citizens,” he explained.

“To name a few, these initiatives include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would subject our country to internationally-based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels.”

Indeed, especially in recent years, the UN has become increasingly brazen in attacking the rights of Americans, and even the U.S. Constitution that enshrines those unalienable rights.

From attacks on free speech and gun rights to assaults on America’s federalist system of government and states’ rights, the UN and its member regimes have become increasingly aggressive.

Now, the UN is working on a series of major schemes that would undermine even the principles upon which the United States was founded, much of it under the guise of promoting pseudo-human rights and pseudo-environmentalism.

Rep. Rogers took special aim at a UN gun treaty that has become a lightning rod for bipartisan opposition across America.

“The U.N. has also offered a potential Arms Trade Treaty which would threaten our Second Amendment rights and impose regulations on our gun manufacturers, who are already facing regulations and pressure from the Obama Administration,” Rogers explained.

That treaty, ATT for short, would purport to require gun registration and eventually strict controls, with the ultimate aim of disarming civilians.

The UN’s perceived anti-Israel bias, which some critics have even dubbed systemic anti-Semitism, also attracted criticism from Rep. Rogers. “Lastly, the U.N. does not support Israel and voted to grant the Palestinian Authority ‘non-member state’ permanent observer status,” he argued.

“Anyone who is not a friend to our ally Israel, is not a friend to the United States.” Even some globalist neo-con senators such as Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have threatened the UN over its apparent hostility to Israel, and the outrage continues to grow.

For the reasons cited above, “among others,” Rep. Rogers said, he introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. By introducing the bill in this session, the congressman from Alabama continues the long and valiant effort by lawmakers to get the U.S. government out of the UN.

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a GOP presidential candidate last election and a hero of many liberty-minded and constitutionalist Americans, first introduced the bill in 1997, when it garnered 54 supporters. The next time it was voted on, support had drastically increased.

While anti-UN sentiment is fierce and growing across much of America, in Alabama, where the legislation’s lead sponsor comes from, that animosity is especially pronounced.

In 2012, for example, both houses of the state legislature voted unanimously to ban the deeply controversial UN “sustainable development” program known as Agenda 21 in what was hailed as a major victory for property rights and sovereignty.

Since then, UN meddling in American affairs has accelerated dramatically, sparking even more outrage about the global organization across Alabama and beyond.

In the U.S. Senate, pro-sovereignty sentiment is also growing. Earlier this year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leading contender for the 2016 nomination, blasted the UN and suggested it should be dismantled.

“I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States,” explained the senator, who is also Ron Paul’s son. “There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it.”

The American public generally shares those sentiments, with a 2014 Gallup poll showing that a staggering 57 percent of Americans believed the UN was doing a “bad job,” versus 37 percent who thought it was doing a “good job.”

More than two thirds of Americans were upset with the UN, and independents were also overwhelmingly opposed. But even among Democrats, half thought the UN was doing a bad job.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, apparently out of step with the American people, has called for drastically expanding and empowering the UN and its scandal-plagued military forces.

The legislation to withdraw U.S. participation in the UN is currently sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee chaired by Rep. Edward “Ed” Royce (R-Calif.), who will play a key role in deciding whether it moves on to the full House for a vote by the American people’s elected representatives.

Americans who support U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution should urge their representatives to take action.

As efforts to fully restore U.S. sovereignty proceed, though, the Republican Congress should completely de-fund the UN in the meantime.

Without action, the increasingly powerful and lawless UN will continue seeking to further empower itself at American expense — trampling on liberty and sovereignty in the process.


End Note – The image below shows just how vast the UN is and much is headquartered in the USA. To see a much larger version, click here:

UNworld-government.1280

Obama and Kerry – Delusional and Insulting, 'Iran's Lawyers'

By Scott W. Winchell

Events concerning the Iran Deal revealed a new low in the Presidency of Obama, and his equally “delusional” Secretary of State, John Kerry. A speech Obama gave yesterday and an interview John Kerry also had this week both insult our intelligence and show how utterly contemptuous and naive each is – all for the ‘legacy from hell’.

This comes on the heels of a speech this week in which Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu “spoke on a conference call organized by the Jewish Federation of North America (JFNA)” regarding the deal:true-obama

“This deal will bring war,” Netanyahu warned. “It will spark a nuclear arms race in the region. And it would feed Iran’s terrorism and aggression that would make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all, far more likely.”

These are the words of a true world class leader, a man seeking to secure his people over his own ambitions as Obama proves to be in stark contrast in terms of leadership, trust, and class.

Here is what Obama said, igniting a fire storm for being so callous, so filled with haterd for anyone who would dare oppose him:

“I realize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to talks… Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those hardliners that are more satisfied with the status quo.”

“It’s those hardliners chanting “death to America” who’ve been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.” The audience applauded this disgusting statement. (Gateway Pundit)

…and the audience laughed and applauded? This is beneath contempt, and debases the office Obama holds.

%CODE%

Maybe Obama was also telling Netanyahu that he too was part of that “caucus.” But didn’t Obama say that 99% of the world was supporting the deal? Really? Stark delusional mania…we refuse to suspend all disbelief Mr. Obama.

Obama said: “If 99% of the world community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say this will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does, it’s temporary then you should have some alternative.” (BBC)

You mean to tell us Mr. Obama that of the 193 nations in the UN, only 1.93 nations do not want this deal? What about Qatar, Israel, the UAE, Egypt – define for us “prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb” please, and explain that other fictitious number of 62 nations aiding in the fight against ISIS, that “JV team.”

The esteemed Charles Krauthammer summed it up so well last night:

On “The Kelly File” [last night], Charles Krauthammer said that President Obama comparing Republicans to Iranians chanting “death to America” is a new low for the president.

“It’s vintage Obama. The demonization of his opponents, the lumping them together with people chanting ‘death to America,’ I must say is a new low for the president,” Krauthammer said.

He added that it’s even worse how delusional Obama is by not seeing that the Iranian leaders and mullahs are the hardliners. “How can you negotiate if you have no conception of the real ideology and intentions of your enemy?” Krauthammer asked. (Fox News with video.)

Compounding that utter tripe was the swill Kerry was spewing earlier:

“[T]he United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point,” Kerry said.

Kerry’s argument confirms the extent to which the Obama administration has become “Iran’s lawyer”–defending Iran’s behavior, adopting its perspective on negotiations, and above all negotiating as if America needed a deal more than the regime.

Another example of defending the indefensible, and like Obama, completely ignores the protestations from the representatives of the people, from both sides of the aisle. Just who does Kerry and Obama represent – it sure isn’t America’s best interests? Where is their fealty to our constitution? But it gets worse:

khamenei-death-to-america

He warned that the “moderate” regime [sic] of Hassan Rouhani would fall if the deal were rejected, and be replaced by a more hard-line one (though it is difficult to point to any way in which Rouhani’s administration is less extremist and violent than its predecessors, except in its language on the global stage).

How could there be a “more hard-line one” Mr. Kerry? Was it not Rouhani who actually led one of those “death to America” rallies? We wonder if Mr. Kerry actually knows who Ayatollah Kamanei, the Supreme Leader is and how this administration has not learned that these evil ‘hard-liners” say what they believe and believe what they say.

History has proven that they tell us what they are going to do, and they do it! But then again, what great negotiators they have proven to be.

In layman’s terms, this is called “negotiating against yourself”–though some critics have begun to speculate openly that Obama wanted all along to boost one of America’s most determined enemies.

Even the liberal media is shaking its head over this lunacy as the interview progressed:

Goldberg, usually a reliable stenographer for an administration he supports, was skeptical of Kerry’s more far-fetched claims. When Kerry boasted that the Iran deal ” is as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets,” Goldberg pushed back. When Kerry claimed, falsely, that the U.S. intercepts weapons shipments to Hezbollah, Goldberg challenged him.John-Kerry-at-House-Olivier-Douliery-Getty-640x480

Kerry dismissed concerns–concerns once cited by Obama himself–that Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear weapon will shrink to near-zero after the deal expires in 10 or 15 years. The Secretary of State also cited Iran’s commitment to the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as proof that Iran would never build a nuclear weapon.

How delusional, morally corrupt, unconscionable, and reprehensible!

Bizarrely, Kerry described Iran’s threats of “death to Israel” as “a fundamental ideological confrontation” between the two, as if it were a disagreement of principle rather than an explicit threat to “wipe Israel off the map” (Goldberg fills in the last three words, since Kerry is almost unwilling to say them).

He also said that Iran’s cash windfall from sanctions relief would not help the Assad regime or regional terror groups much: “It’s not money that’s going to make a difference ultimately in what is happening,” Kerry told an evidently stunned Goldberg.  (Read the complete article at Breitbart)

Truly bizarre! Stunningly BIZARRE!

Our question is, where was Obama when in 2009 there was a popular uprising in Iran that soon turned bloody? These were the true moderates, reformists, the youth, the future, who begged Obama for aid, but no, Obama turned his back on them. So much for their future, Israel’s, and ours!

Once again, Obama and Kerry chose the enemies of Israel and America over those who could have toppled that terrorist regime in Tehran back in 2009. Had he aided the uprising, and ramped up sanctions instead of slow walking, or even opposing further sanctions in 2012, things would have been far different today.

Obama and Hillary Clinton did begrudgingly impose sanctions in 2009 and beyond, but always needing to be dragged kicking and screaming. They did relent and went along with massive pressure from a strangely bi-partisan Congress, but today’s rhetoric shows what their true intentions were all along.

Emails, Distractions, and Details Muddle the Clinton Picture

We Must Remain Focused on the Macro-Hillary Picture

By Scott W. Winchell, SUA Editor

On Friday, the second tranche of court ordered releases of Clinton emails occurred and included 41 messages that reviewers determined contained classified material. There were a few Benghazi related emails in this a chronological release that pre-dated the attack, with at least one referring to security concerns.

But remember what she said at the UN; “there is no classified material… I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”  Oh, the sheer volume of the moving parts…that thumb drive!

Original Image By REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Files
Original Image By REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Files

Several sites have shown the content and how much information can be gleaned, but we are getting lost in the noise; we are not looking at the totality of all of her actions over a very long period. Once again, this is all done in a purposeful manner to keep people confused, like turning over print versions instead of electronic certainly see to that end.

She lied, broke the rules repeatedly, stalled, obfuscated, and the story changes almost daily while the State Department barely meets the court ordered release requirements.

“It says the process is slower because of intense scrutiny by U.S. intelligence agencies to ensure that emails from her private server don’t contain any sensitive or classified government secrets…2,206 pages of emails, roughly 12 percent of the 55,000 pages” were released.

Maybe if they had the electronic version it would be a wee bit faster. Again, a lot of noise, a lot of shiny objects, all piece meal, but definitely at a classified level or it wouldn’t take so long.

However, if we look at this from a 40,000 foot macro perspective, we can clearly see that Clinton should be the subject of an investigation either by the FBI or a Select Committee from Congress at a minimum, and for more than just the email scandal.

Hoping another shiny object would distract us, her campaign released tax records at almost the same moment, timed to do just that and today they released more medical records. With so many moving parts in this saga, it is easy to get lost in the details; look, a squirrel.

hillary-clinton-foundation-money-cashSo let’s begin with a macro question; at what time is any communication transmitted by the Secretary of State of the United States of America not of interest to foreign powers?

For that matter, what about political adversaries, or even the proverbial hacker in his basement on a joy ride to see what he can get into on the net? The answer of course is never, ask Sydney Blumenthal.

All members of a President’s cabinet are by definition some of the most powerful people in the world; all are targets, all the time. That is why we have rules and laws in place to preserve the safety of the information each deals with 24/7; it is called national security.

When it comes to the Secretary of State, the most important cabinet level position and the number four slot for Presidential succession, it is clear that all communications he or she engages in are de facto important and sensitive in nature, even if it’s just about what she wants to eat that day. When does something actually get classified? Is it not often after the fact anyway as we now see?hillary-clinton-what-difference-does-it-make-benghazi-dead-americans-9111

When considering whether or not a coded stamp is placed on any transmission designating it to be classified at some level is beside the point, and it is folly to split hairs about whether or not Hillary Clinton knew they were or were not.

All her correspondence is important to some enemy. Any responsible person, especially somebody who once resided in the White House knows this and is required to act accordingly, that is, unless you are a Clinton. Her denials are an insult to our intelligence.

What is worse, and we have to keep repeating this point, at no time ever, did Hillary Clinton have any right of ownership of her email as Secretary of State. None, not even “personal” ones! Each and every transmission she made after swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution were automatically the property of the people – case closed!

The proof in just how important her communications are or were, is in the data dump we received yesterday where large portions of her transmissions were heavily redacted and many were classified after the fact as too sensitive to be released to the public. Not only is it a fact that she did not own them, she also harbored them outside the purview of federal security, a crime. Who cares what was in the headline at the NY Times.

Then there is the case of the personal lawyer and others with whom she gave access to view all of her transmissions, and that pesky thumb drive. When did she become the arbiter of who had clearance to view what is now confirmed to be sensitive intelligence? And, what about all those gaps?

ClintonEmailGap

The Clinton camp assures us that her personal attorney holds proper clearance, but he is not a State Department employee and has no right to harbor sensitive material let alone even seeing it, especially in a private setting, ask David Petraeus. And why has no one from the State Department sent security agents to secure that thumb drive from David Kendall?

“This raises very serious questions and concerns if a private citizen is somehow retaining classified information,” Grassley’s said in a letter sent late last week. He asked for more information on Kendall’s clearance and whether the lawyer was authorized to “be the custodian of classified national security information.” The FBI has not yet responded. (Politico)

Then there is the curious case of Huma Abedin, another Grassley letter to State:

“The letter sought the status of an inquiry into whether Abedin had violated conflict-of-interest laws related to her special employment situation, which allowed her to work simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a private firm with close ties to the Clintons.”

Huma-Abedin-and-Hillary-ClintonHow was it that Abedin was given such status, apparently over paid at that, and once again clearly brings the Clinton Foundation and all its moving parts back into the picture?

Everything the Clintons touch is part of a racket, pure and simple, and a personal ATM. From 40,000 feet it all forms a clear picture – Hillary Clinton is not only a dismal campaigner and speaker, she is as corrupt and untrustworthy as any has ever been.

The Clinton campaign worries about the damage that cannot be “unwound” that the NY Times caused in their opinion, but maybe they should worry more about the law and Judge Sullivan who on Friday turned up the heat a bit more:

A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the order Friday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed in 2013 seeking records about the employment status of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who worked as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff but later transferred to a part-time job as a so-called “special government employee.”

At such a hearing on Friday, Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they’ve produced all records related to Abedin’s employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems.

“As related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information; (2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department,” Sullivan wrote in an order issued Friday afternoon.

“If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and (3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.” (Read the rest here at Politico.)

We should turn up the heat as well, and avoid being sucked into the maelstrom they want us to focus upon instead. Our attention must be maintained and we should read more about the “law and the Secretary of State”:

“…four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration‘s (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.” (Read more at the NPR article written on this last April. Also see Title 44 here, and a time line on the creation of these laws.)

Wait for it though, rumors of another “bimbo eruption” will be sure to confuse and distract us from what we believe makes Hillary Clinton a criminal and unfit to hold any office in America… other than one in a prison cell.


A reprise of the following is warranted here:

THE CRIMINAL ARROGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON – Bill Whittle

%CODE%

Obama's PC Military – Purge of Warrior Mentality

Disaster: Today’s Warrior Purge in the U.S. military

Where do we find such men?

By Robert K. Wilcox – American Thinker

That memorable line comes from James Mitchner’s Korean War novel, The Bridges of Toko-Ri.  It refers to intrepid aviators lifting from a carrier, flying into untold danger.  They know they may not return.  They launch anyway.  In boldness unfathomable to many, they willingly, artfully fly into peril.  They are warriors, men of rare talent, intellect, and courage – a combination essential for victory.

Needed warriors are now being purged from the U.S. military.  If America went to war right now with China or Russia, we could lose because of these purges.  We’re losing top-level warrior-leaders to make the crucial differences in battle.

They’re being systematically drummed out as politically incorrect.  When the going gets tough, political correctness (PC) is useless.  Then the brilliant, wily fighters, the coolest heads, the most courageous warriors, are needed to lead regardless of social views or record.

Today, in large measure, our fighting forces are led by briefcase-carrying busybodies, yes-men more interested in enforcing political beliefs and social change than leading in battle.  They care more about their careers than what’s happening to the military and thus the country.  Just last week, a new downsizing of the army was announced – without a protest.

Warriors are not prized.  They are criticized and ridiculed.  Up-and-coming warriors who admire the purged want to emulate them, see what’s happening, and are exiting as a result.

PattonMercy“Soldiers like George Patton or Curtis LeMay are no longer wanted,” writes LCOL Greg Lee, USMC (ret.) in a well-circulated internet forward.

“The fundamental job of the military, ‘kill bad people and break things,’ has become critically hampered by ‘rules of engagement’ [and policies] who’s [sic] guiding logic is political outcome, not successful combat.

If the US military is ever defeated, it will be because [rather than honing fighting skills, nurturing fighting thinkers and leaders] it is running the best Day Care centers in the world.”

Political correctness, social change, even care for the enemy are now the battle cries of the U.S. military hierarchy in the Pentagon.

The rules of engagement (ROI), changed to limit civilian deaths under President Obama, are now so dangerous that American soldiers have been made into sitting ducks.  In years past, generals and admirals resigned over such disregard for their troops.

Today’s leaders acquiesce and espouse confusing non-military goals.  The president confounds Coast Guard graduates saying their enemy is climate change.  He sends 3,000 troops to battle…Ebola?

Pentagon priorities are women’s and gay rights and defeating the world’s social ills – disease, hunger, and poverty.  These are worthy causes for a Peace Corps, church group, or diplomat, but not for the military, whose sole constitutional purpose is defending Americans against military threats.  Do you send a sniper to nurse a baby?

Battlefield interrogation, once a life-saver for engaged troops, is now considered torture by the Pentagon and therefore almost eliminated.  Commanders know it will bring immediate dismissal.

Ask former representative Alan West, who, as an army commander, roughed up an Iraqi spy and saved his men from ambush.  He was quickly relieved of command, and had it not been for public opinion, he would probably be in jail.AlanWestUniform

Soft interrogation in the heat of battle is useless.  Toughness, not empathy, is needed once war is declared.  War is hell.

Leaders are increasingly chosen for race and/or gender rather than military skills.  Under Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel a Pentagon training manual taught how white males in the military have an unfair advantage.

A hushed story is that a Blue Angels skipper, Donnie Cochran, picked to head the famed Navy flying group largely because of race, resigned after admitting he wasn’t up to the job.

Similarly, the first female Tomcat pilot, Kara Hultgreen, rushed into the cockpit because of her gender, died slamming into the rear of the carrier on approach because of “pilot error.”

In both cases, PC rushed the assignments.  The ignorance and bias of most media regarding warriors and warfare exacerbate the problem.  Few have served.  Most see only the social arguments.

Sexual orientation appears the next criterion – especially with the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.  According to the Washington Times (June 9, 2015), a gay general in the Army recently introduced his husband at a Pentagon gay rights rally, where Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was the keynote speaker.

In opening remarks, Brig. Gen. Randy S. Taylor, master of ceremonies, called attention to his husband, Lucas, “sitting up front.”  Carter then told the audience, “We need to be a meritocracy. We can’t afford to close ourselves off to anybody.”  Gays, as well as women, can certainly be warriors, but needed warriorhood was not mentioned at the rally.  It is never mentioned, because it is shunned.

Religion, too, a bedrock of warrior culture, is being purged.  Pentagon edicts have banned any expressions of Christianity in counseling soldiers.  A marine lance corporal, Monifa Sterling, a black female, was given a court martial and bad conduct discharge for having a Bible verse on her desk and refusing to remove it.

In contradiction to the old truism, will atheists now be the only soldiers allowed in foxholes?  How about Muslims?  In direct contrast to Christianity, militant Islam, a self-declared enemy, is coddled, even defended.

A blind eye is turned to its murder, tyranny, and aggression, a prime example being the Ft. Hood shootings.  The rugged individualism and fervor, sometimes religious, of warriors like Patton, Jimmy Doolittle, Pappy Boyington, and Robin Olds are now deemed bigotry and discrimination – a quick ticket out.

Blog-6-20-2014-Doolittle-RaidAs a well-circulated piece in the Beaufort (South Carolina) Observer lamented:

“Can you imagine someone today looking for a leader to execute the Doolittle Raid [on Tokyo] and suggesting that it be assigned to a dare-devil boozer whose attributes [nonetheless] are [those of a needed warrior] he had respect of his men, an awesome ability to fly, and the organizational skills to put all together?”

No way.  “Where are all the dynamic leaders of the past?”  I’ll tell you, adds the piece: “[t]hey were fired before they made major.”

Numbers tell the tale: 197 officers purged in the five years up to October 2013 – this according to Stand Up America, a media organization founded by army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (ret.).  That’s an extraordinary number.  Later figures are unavailable (probably hidden).  It appears that senior officers who wanted to aid those under siege at Benghazi were purged.

A January 2015 article at AMAC.US named Gen. Carter Hamm, in charge of African Command, and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, a carrier commander in the Mediterranean at the time, as believed relieved because of their indications to aid.  “Take a look at some of the nine who have been fired or relieved of duty [since Benghazi],” writes AMAC’s Joseph R. Carducci.

“This is one of the largest and fastest purges of military commanders that has ever been recorded.”

The White House is behind the purges.  For the first time in American history, a U.S. president, Barack Obama, disdains the military from the Oval Office.  From ignorance of the military word “corpsmen” to not acknowledging fallen heroes like at Benghazi to championing huge and dangerous reductions in the military budget, Obama, even as threats mount, has shown his contempt for warriors.

While speaking out on questionable deaths of black youths, he says little to nothing about warrior deaths.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is woefully undershipped – from 600 to 300 in a matter of years.  This despite military buildups in China and Russia.  The Air Force and Navy need new and better planes to keep pace.

We’re ridiculously withholding arms from those fighting ISIS.  Only lip service is given to shamefully treated veterans.  In addition, Obama refuses to identify by name America’s most vocal enemy – militant Islam.

The religion’s fighters rape, murder, and torture, and assault almost every PC belief Obama and his aides expound, yet Obama dismisses them as “JV” (junior varsity), “terrorists,” or an aberration.  They know he won’t fight.

Like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister on the eve of WWII, Obama and his advisors have a naive and dangerous belief that appeasement and concession are the ways to avoid conflict and aggression.  Chamberlain, waving his meaningless treaty from Hitler, learned the hard way.

Once Hitler started WWII, the British people saw the error of Chamberlain’s beliefs and elected Winston Churchill, a warrior if there ever was one, to lead them in crisis.

Chamb.Hitler.Obama.Khamanei

But it may soon be too late for America.  Few, if any, of Obama’s aides seem to know this gallant history.  Few, if any, have served in the military.  They disguise a low opinion of warriors by casually referring to anyone in uniform as a “hero” while privately ridiculing soldiers as ignorant, offish, and war-mongers – the “bitter clingers” Obama has spoken of.  They certainly do not embrace the “warrior culture,” one of the phrases most used by the purgers in calling for good riddance.

No less than John Lehman, former secretary of the Navy, has called attention to the purging.  In a recent U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, he wrote, “[T]he attributes of naval aviators –  willingness to take intelligent, calculated risk, self-confidence, even a certain swagger are the very [attributes] that make them particularly vulnerable in today’s zero-tolerance Navy.”

Zero tolerance means one strike and you’re out – no second chance.  Commanders, especially warrior-commanders, are being “bounced for the bad luck of being breathalyzed after two beers, or allowing risqué forecastle [shipboard] follies.”  Such follies, usually to commemorate events like crossing the equator, have been international naval tradition for hundreds of years.

Today’s purgers, writes Lehman, are PC “thought police” who, “like Inspector Javert in Les Miserables, are out to get [the offenders] and are relentless.”  Any infraction means dismissal.  A soldier’s previous record or potential means nothing.  He has no chance to learn from his mistake.

“Adm. Chester Nimitz [who led the U.S. Navy’s Pacific victory in WWII] put a squadron of destroyers on the rocks. But while being put in purgatory for a while, he was protected by seniors who recognized his potential talent. In today’s Navy, Nimitz would be gone” – as would any officer who wanted to keep him.  “Political correctness just might do more damage to American security than did the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets.”

 

Labor Report Shows Gains, The Market Impact, EU Troubles

Editor’s Note – The monthly jobs report is in and many are calling it an improvement while others are much more skeptical. Yes, there was a sizable gain in jobs, and the U1 rate stayed at 5.5%, but those are deceptive because of the numbers that underlie the broader picture.

Americans are finding jobs, but at a dismal rate when you look at history outside of recent recovery years prior to this one.  Too many people are out of the work force but those numbers are also slightly lower.unemployment Blues

Overall, it is still a lackluster recovery, and when one looks at the details and also includes the global picture, we are a long way away from a ship sailing right on its keel.

We caution optimism here because these better numbers are still quite small and other factors are not improving.

The 1st quarter GDP numbers were surprising as the economy retracted, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised and excused the “anomaly” and showed us a rosier picture to coincide with the more positive labor report.

But as usual, it is little solace to the millions not even in the labor force or those forced into part-time work – underemployment not even close to their potential.

BLS LogoWith this news, the stock markets were weary that a positive change may forestall the much discussed rise in interest rates, maybe even into the election season.

The markets closed down today and showed a loss for the week. (Read more below.) The markets like certainty, and they are not getting it from Janet Yellin as the reports emerge like today.

Here is a compilation of these numbers, and a reminder that things in Europe are more uncertain and now it appears that the Greeks are seeking advice from Russia’s Putin.

Global uncertainty, and a detached stock market make for highly uncertain times and somewhat implausible numbers as Zero Hedge points out below as well:

92,986,000 Non-participants in the workforce:

The month of May saw 92,986,000 people not participating in the workforce, according to new data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals. May’s total represented slight decline compared to last month’s record, which saw 93,194,000 people outside the workforce.

The BLS defines those not in the labor force as people ages 16 and older who are neither employed nor “made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week.” The labor force participation rate came in at 62.9 percent, a slight uptick compared to April’s 62.8 percent. (Breitbart)

55,951,000 Women out of the workforce:

Mirroring the national numbers, the number of women outside the workforce experienced a slight decline in May, according to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April, the number of women not in the workforce hit a record 56,167,000. Come May, that number declined to 55,951,000.unemployment

With the number of women out of the labor force decreasing, so the number of women in the civilian workforce increased from 73,267,000 in April to 73,577,000 in May. The workforce participation rate among women also experienced a slight uptick to 56.8 percent. (Breitbart)

6,652,000 More Americans Working Part-Time, but not by choice:

Another 72,000 workers were working part time last month because their hours were cut or they couldn’t find full-time work. The total number of involuntary part-time workers jumped to 6,652,000 in May, up from 6,580,000 in April, but well below the 7,268,000 in May 2014, according to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to BLS, involuntary part-time workers are “persons who indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time (1 to 34 hours) because of an economic reason, such as their hours were cut back or they were unable to find full-time jobs.” (CNS News)

“The Job Numbers Literally Do Not Add Up” – Productivity:

Payroll Stats Become Even More Implausible – Since Q1 GDP was revised lower by almost 1% that meant estimates of productivity were going to be even more out of alignment than they were at the first release. Of course, in a less massaged environment productivity might have preserved some sense if there was less rigidity from the BLS on the employment side.

In other words, when “output” estimates were reduced (and they were, by more than GDP) it would make sense that everything would be revised downward in a more cohesive process. Instead, output was reduced significantly, by 1.4%, while total hours worked was marked down by all of 0.1%. As a result, productivity is revised from a nonsensical -1.9% to an even more skeptical -3.1%. (Zero Hedge)

Greek Crisis & Great Britain Threat to leave the EU:

Greece crisis live: PM tells parliament a debt deal can be done as stocks slide and Athens looks to Moscow. Greece will have to pay €1.6bn to the IMF and €1.5bn in pensions and wages by the end of the month. (Video from the UK Telegraph)

%CODE%

Follow the almost hourly update read more here.

IMF director Christine Lagarde and Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis in happier days (AFP)
IMF director Christine Lagarde and Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis in happier days (AFP)

More from Zero Hedge on Greece:

Greek Banks On Verge Of Total Collapse: Bank Run Surges “Massively” As Depositors Yank €700 Million Today Alone – While the Greek government believes it may have won the battle, if not the war with Europe, the reality is that every additional day in which Athens does not have a funding backstop, be it the ECB (or the BRIC bank), is a day which brings the local banking system to total collapse.

As a reminder, Greek banks already depends on the ECB for some €80.7 billion in Emergency Liquidity Assistance which was about 60% of total deposits in the Greek financial system as of April 30. In other words, they are woefully insolvent and only the day to day generosity of the ECB prevents a roughly 40% forced “bail in” deposit haircut a la Cyprus. (Read more here.)

The British Issue from the AP:

The prospect that economic and diplomatic heavyweight Britain might leave the European Union within two years has pushed EU leaders to consider concessions to keep the country in the fold.Unemployment-2

EU founding members like Germany and France are moving outside their comfort zones, surprisingly receptive to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for change ahead of a referendum that will allow citizens to vote on whether to stay or go before the end of 2017.

With Europe’s top priority the very real risk that Greece might fall out of the euro single currency, Cameron has found a surprisingly open ear in many capitals of the world’s biggest trading bloc.(Read more at AP)

GDP drop in the first quarter of 2015:

June 25th in the Wall Street Journal:

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, fell at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 2.9% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said in its third reading of the data Wednesday.

That was a sharp downward revision from the previous estimate that output fell at an annual rate of 1%. It also represented the fastest rate of decline since the recession, and was the largest drop recorded since the end of World War II that wasn’t part of a recession. (Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

But the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports today:

Real gross domestic product — the value of the production of goods and services in the United States, adjusted for price changes — decreased at an annual rate of 0.7 percent in the first quarter of 2015, according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 2.2 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, real GDP increased 0.2 percent. With the second estimate for the first quarter, imports increased more and private inventory investment increased less than previously estimated (for more information, see “Revisions” on page 3).

The decrease in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset by positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased. (Read more here at the BLS)

Stock Market:

U.S. Stocks Close Slightly Lower

Jobs report provides evidence to investors, traders that economy is lifting out of first-quarter slump

By DAN STRUMPF – Wall Street Journal

Stocks fell Friday as the strong May jobs report cemented expectations that the Fed will begin raising borrowing costs this fall, capping a volatile few days for stocks that leaves major benchmarks slightly lower for the week.

Traders and investors said the May jobs report offered evidence that the U.S. economy was pulling itself out of its first-quarter slump. While a firming economy is usually a good backdrop for stocks, investors say the hiring pickup keeps the Federal Reserve on track to start raising short-term interest rates as soon as September, potentially boosting borrowing costs for businesses and consumers alike.

Stocks spent the Friday session swinging between gains and losses before settling with a modest decline. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 56.12, or 0.3%, to 17849.46, bouncing back from an loss of as much as 83 points earlier in the session.

The S&P 500 index fell 3.01, or 0.1%, to 2092.83, while the Nasdaq Composite Index rose 9.33, or 0.2%, to 5068.46.May5.15DowClose

Stocks ended the week lower, after an early-week rally that petered out. The S&P 500 is down 0.7% for the week, while the Dow is down 0.9%.

Major stock benchmarks have pulled back in recent sessions from record highs reached just last month, weighed down by a cocktail of uneven economic data, murkiness over the Fed’s course of action and lofty valuations. The Dow is off 2.5% from its high reached May 19. The S&P 500 is down 1.8% from its May 21 high.

“For the economy, the bottom line is that [the jobs data] is a good number,” said Brent Schutte, senior investment strategist at BMO Global Asset Management, which oversees $249 billion. But he added:

“To the extent that it brings people closer to believing that the Fed will raise rates in September, it will be near-term hit to the equity markets and the bond markets.”

The solid jobs report sparked sharper selloff in the bond market, lifting the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note to an eight-month high of 2.402%, from 2.309% on Thursday. It is the highest closing level since Oct. 6. Bond prices fall as their yields rise.

For the week, the yield climbed by 0.305 percentage point, the biggest weekly rise since June 2013 when the bond market was rattled by the “taper tantrum,” or fears over reduced bond buying from the Fed.

The bond market has sold off since late April after a strong run-up in price over the past year. Many investors are recasting their portfolio as they believe the rise in bond yields reflect an improving economic and inflation outlook in the U.S. and the eurozone. (Read the rest here at the Wall Street Journal.)