30,000 troops enroute to Afghanistan. It's unofficially called the "Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy."


The first additional U.S. forces will begin to arrive in Afghanistan within two or three weeks, and when all of them are in place, about 100,000 troops will be in Afghanistan.


The plan sounds alot like McChrystal's assessment and proposed handling of the war, with less troops, and possibly a shorter time-table.


Secretary of Defense Gates says the strategy offers the best possibility to decisively change the momentum in Afghanistan and fundamentally alter the strategic equation in Pakistan and Central Asia.  He also said that defeating Al-Qaeda and enhancing Afghan security are mutually reinforcing missions that cannot be untethered from one another, as much as we might wish that to be the case.

The plans include steam rolling the Taliban out of the areas they control in Afghanistan and eliminating Al-Qaeda as a threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  A weak Pakistan government with elements sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban led to a resurgence of these groups in Afghanistan.


Gates' assessment:  "The Taliban in Pakistan, with al-Qaeda’s help, have escalated bombing attacks throughout the country. In the spring, they launched operations that took the extremist group to within 60 miles of Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. The Pakistani army has moved decisively against this threat and also has launched operations in South Waziristan – part of the federally administered tribal area that holds al-Qaeda and Taliban safe havens.If Islamic extremists are successful in Central and South Asia, it would strengthen al-Qaeda in particular and extremist groups in general.


Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee the strategy provides sufficient resources for Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, to reverse gains insurgent groups have made in recent years. “It gets the most U.S. force into the fight as quickly as possible, giving General McChrystal everything he needs in 2010 to gain the initiative,” the chairman said.

“We now have the force of strategy more appropriately matched to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and resources matched more appropriately to that strategy, particularly with regard to reversing the insurgency's momentum in 2010,” said Mullen.

The additional U.S. troops likely will comprise two or three more brigade combat teams and a brigade-sized element committed to embedding with and training their Afghan counterparts, which represents a key component undergirding the transfer of responsibility to Afghanistan, expected to begin in July.

Mullen said the strategy provides commanders “discrete objectives” and offers better guidance about how to employ their forces. While the goals of thwarting al-Qaeda, preventing Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist safe haven and employing a counterinsurgency approach are unchanged, the strategy engenders a more defined scope, he said.

“Now, they will tailor this campaign and those operations by focusing on key population areas, by increasing pressure on al-Qaeda's leadership, by more effectively working to degrade the Taliban's influence and by streamlining and accelerating the growth of competent Afghan national security forces,” Mullen said.

The Goal?

U.S. strategy aims to reverse the Taliban’s momentum and reduce its strength, while providing the time and space necessary for the Afghans to develop enough security and governance capacity to stabilize their own country. Roll back the Taliban, deny them access to the Afghan people, disrupt them outside secured areas, prevent al-Qaeda from regaining sanctuary and degrade Taliban capabilities to levels that allow Afghan national security forces to take the lead. The strategy also calls for increasing the size and capability of Afghan security forces and selectively building the Afghan government’s capacity, particularly in key ministries.

The strategy also calls for increasing the size and capability of Afghan security forces and selectively building the Afghan government’s capacity, particularly in key ministries.

“This approach is not open-ended ‘nation building,’” Gates said. “It is neither necessary nor feasible to create a modern, centralized, Western-style Afghan nation-state, the likes of which has never been seen in that country.”

It also does not mean pacifying every village from one end of Afghanistan to the other, the secretary said. “It is, instead, a narrower focus tied more tightly to our core goal of disrupting, dismantling and eventually defeating al-Qaeda by building the capacity of the Afghans – capacity that will be measured by observable progress on clear objectives, and not simply by the passage of time.”

The civil-military plan is to clear, hold, build and transfer.

“The plan clearly is that we will not transition security responsibility to the Afghans until the Afghans have the capacity, in that district or that province, to be able to manage the security situation on their own, with us and our allies initially in a tactical overwatch, and then a strategic overwatch, situation.  Commanders will look at the situation on the ground just as commanders in Iraq did,  and will assess security district by district and province by province. So the ability of the Afghans to take this on will depend on the circumstances in each of these areas. Afghan forces will need additional training and then will deploy as partners with U.S. and NATO forces. One of the purposes of the U.S. going in with additional forces is not just to partner with the Afghans and not just to train the Afghans, but [also] to degrade the capabilities of the Taliban,” Secretary Gates  said.

WHERE WILL ADDITIONAL TROOPS BE DEPLOYED?

A defense official said a portion of the additional troops are likely to reinforce the country’s contentious eastern and southern areas. "A chief responsibility of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, will be to determine where to apply the added resources if the president authorizes them," the official said.

“I would think he would want to reinforce some of his forces in the east and the south where the main effort by the Taliban and associated forces have been,” the official said of McChrystal. “But it’s up to him, based on the types of troops he has and where he needs them first and how he’s going to use them.”

The distribution of additional troops would factor in the current U.S. footprint in Afghanistan, which comprises about 68,000 troops -- a mixture of combat forces and trainers -- spread throughout, but with the east and south serving as focal points. Troops under NATO’s command add a complement of 42,000 troops.

"Though violence has risen across the board in recent years in Afghanistan, the bloodshed is most intense in the country’s east and south, which have seen more than a two-fold increase in the use of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs," Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.

"Two U.S. Army brigade combat teams, or BCTs, each with about 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers, are operating in Regional Command South -- one of five regional commands in Afghanistan comprising international forces under NATO leadership. The 2nd Infantry Division’s 5th Stryker BCT of Fort Lewis, Wash., operates in eastern and northern Kandahar province and western Zabul province, and the 82nd Airborne Division’s 4th BCT of Fort Bragg, N.C., performs advisory roles and training in the region," he said.

Attacks involving IEDs -- the No. 1 killer of U.S. forces in Afghanistan -- is especially rampant in the south, Wright said.

“The Strykers have met a lot of resistance in the Kandahar province,” he said of the 5th Stryker BCT, which employs eight-wheeled armored combat vehicles. “Around [Kandahar] city and out farther into the countryside, there have been a lot of IEDs. They’ve suffered some really significant casualties.”

The Institute for the Study of War, a think-tank headed by Kimberly Kagan, a member of McChrystal’s assessment team, cites the Taliban under Mullah Mohammed Omar as the main threat to stability in southern Afghanistan.

In July, U.S. Marines and Afghan security forces launched an operation in southern Afghanistan’s Helmand River valley, waging war against Taliban operatives in the area.

Currently, some 8,000 Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade of Camp Lejeune, N.C., are responsible for southern and western Helmand province and in the western border province of Farah.

The biggest security threat in eastern Afghanistan, which includes a war-ravaged border area with Pakistan that spans some 450 miles, is the Haqqani network, an insurgent group with ties to al-Qaeda, according to the Institute for the Study of War.

“In the east, it’s been pretty much a constant fight,” said Wright, citing a large battle in the area’s Nuristan province in October, where some 18 months earlier a battle raged for control of the Wanat district. “The same province has seen some fairly significant combat in significant numbers – hundreds of Taliban gathered and launching attacks against [U.S.] forces. So it’s a pretty intense, ongoing fight there.”

Wright also made the following points:

"Of the four American BCTs engaged in eastern Afghanistan, the 10th Mountain Division’s 3rd BCT of Fort Drum, NY, has operated in the Logar and Wardak provinces since January, and the 25th Infantry Division’s 4th Airborne BCT of Wahiawa, Hawaii, has been engaged in Paktia, Paktika, and Khowst provinces since March."

"In addition, the 4th Infantry Division’s 4th BCT of Fort Carson, Colo., deployed to Nuristan, Nangahar, Kunar and Laghman provinces in June, and the 48th BCT of the Georgia National Guard deployed as an advisory brigade to Regional Command East in May."

"Even with the sustained focus on the south and east, more troops are likely to deploy there if McChrystal determines those areas to have the biggest needs."

“For whatever forces are authorized by the president, [McChrystal’s] going to have to make his decision based on priority of need and where they’d be most useful, where those additional resources can be applied."

ARE WE DOING THIS ALONE?  THE "NATO" FACTOR:

Sec. of Defense Gates said he has received commitments from allies for more military forces. “We have received private commitments from some countries, but because they have not yet announced them at home, we're not in a position to make that announcement for them. I will just give you an example. I made two telephone calls [the] day before yesterday, and … I received the assurances of between 1,800 and 2,000 troops,” said Gates.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he expects the alliance and its partners will make a “substantial increase” in their contributions.

The secretary general noted that Afghanistan is not a U.S. mission alone.

“America's allies in NATO have shared the risks, costs and burdens of this mission from the beginning,” he said. “As the U.S. increases its commitment, I am confident that the other allies, as well as our partners in the mission, will also make a substantial increase in their contribution.”

On the eve of the a two-day meeting of NATO foreign ministers this week, Rasmussen called upon alliance members and partners to follow the U.S. example and increase their commitments.

“In 2010, the non-U.S. members of this mission will send at least 5,000 more soldiers, and probably more,” the secretary general said at a news conference in Brussels, Belgium. “At this very important moment, NATO must demonstrate its unity and its strength once again.”

Rasmussen said he has pressed allies and partners to fully resource NATO’s training mission in Afghanistan with a view toward helping to foster the transition to Afghans taking the lead. He also emphasized that the International Security Assistance Force mission would not end until Afghans are capable of securing and running their country themselves.

“Our strategy is very clear: to transfer lead responsibility for running their own country to the Afghans, as soon as possible,” the secretary general said. “But transition is not a code word for exit strategy. It means transition to a more supporting role [for allies and partners].”

Rasmussen added that more development assistance and a stepped-up effort on the civilian side of the effort would “create a new momentum in the mission in 2010.” At the upcoming foreign ministers meeting, he noted, allies and partners will discuss not only the military operation, but also the broader political strategy in Afghanistan, which includes the promotion of good governance throughout the country.

AND WHAT OF "THE CIVILIAN FRONT?"

Cautious about stating that the U.S. was essentially "nation-building" in Afghanistan, Gates said that Improving governance in Afghanistan is important to the strategy,  and that it calls for U.S. and NATO leaders to focus not only on the national government in Kabul, but also on provincial and district officials and tribal leaders. He emphasized that the key here is community security organizations that are willing to work with the government in Kabul and that do not become the militias for warlords.

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry and Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, are working on the joint civil-military campaign plan. That plan will establish the base for transition to Afghan security forces.

The Defense Secretary did not hold back on remarking about U.S. shortcomings, specifically the State Department.  He said the State Department seems to lack the kind of flexibility and agility it needs to spend money and make commitments quickly, citing restrictions and processes State Department officials must to go through with respect to their funds.

Detailing the civilian aspect of the war Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “Civilian experts and advisors are helping to craft policy inside [Afghan] government ministries, providing development assistance in the field, and working in scores of other roles,  When our Marines went into Nawa this July, we had civilians on the ground with them to coordinate assistance the next day.”

"For the nonmilitary portion of the president’s strategy to be effective," Clinton said, "the Afghan people and the United States must hold Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government accountable for keeping its promise to fight corruption and improve governance. The State Department intends to help in strengthening Afghan institutions at every level of society so that the country doesn’t fall into chaos when U.S. troops begin to withdraw in 2011."

As part of the effort to shore up Afghanistan and prepare it to take responsibility for its own security, the civilian strategy involves supporting an Afghan-led effort to welcome Taliban members who want to become productive members of Afghan society.

“We understand that some of those who fight with the insurgency do so not out of conviction, but due to coercion or money,” Clinton said. “All Afghans should have the choice to pursue a better future if they do so peacefully, respect the basic human rights of their fellow citizens and reintegrate into their society.”

"The economy is another factor in the State Department’s key to success in Afghanistan," said Clinton. "A civilian corps with expertise in such things as governance and agriculture -- the traditional core of the Afghan economy -- will go a long way to bolstering the country’s independence," she said.

“We will be delivering high-impact assistance and bolstering Afghanistan’s agricultural sector,” the secretary said. “This will create jobs, reduce the funding that the Taliban receives from poppy cultivation, and draw insurgents off the battlefield.”

The State Department’s role in stabilizing Afghanistan will take it outside that country’s borders to neighboring Pakistan, Clinton said. The country of 175 million with a nuclear arsenal and its own challenges must become a key partner in the fight against violent extremism, she said, noting that terrorist attacks in Pakistan earlier this year have made the country increasingly aware that it shares a common enemy with the United States.

“We will significantly expand support intended to help develop the potential of Pakistan and its people,” she said. “We will do so by demonstrating the United States’ commitment to addressing problems that affect the everyday lives of Pakistanis and bring our people closer together.”

The partnership also will bolster the country, currently a safe haven for and target of terrorists, against the threat of extremism, said the secretary added.

The United States will not face these challenges, military or civilian, alone, Clinton said. “We share this responsibility with governments around the world."

The United States is looking beyond NATO to build the broadest possible global coalition to meet the challenges ahead, Clinton said.

“Our NATO allies have already made significant contributions of their own in Afghanistan, … and we’re also asking the international community to expand its support to Pakistan.”

WHAT ABOUT THE 2011 JULY DEADLINE?

Secretary of Defense Gates clarified that July 2011 is the beginning, not the end, of the process of U.S. forces coming home, noting that any transition will be based on conditions on the ground and that the centerpiece of U.S. debates on the strategy was how to get the Afghans to step up and take responsibility for their own future in a way that allows us to have confidence that they will not once again become the safe haven for Al-Qaeda.

“I think that there are at least two principal audiences,” Gates said of the July 2011 date announcement. “One audience [is] the Afghan government, [which] must accept responsibility in terms of their own governance, in terms of their own security forces, in terms of accepting their responsibility and … taking ownership of this conflict on their own soil, that it's not just going to be fought by foreigners on their behalf.

“I think the other audience,” he continued, “is the American people, who are weary after eight years of war, and to let them know this isn't going to go on for another 10 years.”

Though any reduction in U.S. forces in July 2011 would be based on conditions on the ground, the Defense Department expects to be able to transition uncontested areas to Afghan responsibility and gradually draw down at that time.  The July 2011 date was chosen because it will be two years after Marines arrived in Helmand province from an earlier increase in forces, Gates said.  Gates suggested that the July 2011 marker for withdrawal is a target date, and not a binding commitment.

“It will be based on conditions on the ground,” said Gates. “But by the same token, we want to communicate to the Afghans that this is not an open-ended commitment on the part of the American people and our allies around the world.

“We have to build a fire under them, frankly,” he added, “to get them to do the kind of recruitment, retention, training and so on for their forces that allow us to make this transition.”

The president, Gates and other leaders have reassured Afghan and Pakistani leaders that Obama’s announcement that U.S. troops in Afghanistan will start to come home in July 2011 does not mean America will walk away from the region.

“Quite frankly, I detest the phrase ‘exit strategy,’” Gates said during testimony at the Senate. “What we are looking at over time is a transition in our relationship with the Afghans,” he said.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED:  WHAT THEN?

When the mission is accomplished, will we then leave Afghanistan again to its own devices?

On Dec. 24, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan. The United States protested the invasion and in the years that followed, America supported and armed Afghan and foreign fighters opposed to the Soviets. Pakistan was a key ally in this struggle, allowing the United States to stage the effort out of their country. The strategy paid off, and in 1989, the last Soviet tank left Afghanistan.

Then the United States left. Pakistan still had millions of Afghan refugees on its territory, Afghanistan itself had perhaps millions of dead from the struggle against the Soviets, and Afghan warlords began fighting among themselves – killing more people and devastating more areas in an already prostrate nation.

On top of that was the Pressler Amendment, named for the South Dakota senator who attached it to legislation. It required the president to affirm that Pakistan was not seeking nuclear weapons. By the late 1980s, nations around the world conceded that Pakistan had nuclear weaponry. The Pressler Amendment kicked in and ended U.S. military aid and contacts with Pakistan in 1990.

“With respect to Pakistan: Because of American withdrawal from the region in the early 1990s, followed by a severing of military-to-military relations, many Pakistanis are skeptical that the United States is a reliable, long-term strategic partner,” said Gates. “We must change that perception.”

Leaders in Pakistan have been shocked in the last year by the inroads the Taliban have made in Pakistan, and the Pakistani army has launched offensives in the Swat Valley and in South Waziristan.

“One of the significant political developments in Pakistan over the last seven or eight months has been a strong shift in public opinion in support of the actions that the Pakistani army is taking, first in Swat and now in South Waziristan,” Gates said in his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The threat to both Afghanistan and Pakistan is a nexus among al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and the Taliban in Afghanistan. “And they are mutually reinforcing, both in their narrative and in their operations,” the Secretary said.

Many Pakistanis are Pashtu, which also is the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. The Pakistani military and intelligence service developed relationships with Afghan extremist groups when those groups were battling the Soviets.

“They have maintained some of those contacts and those relationships, frankly, as a hedge because of their uncertainty whether the United States would be a reliable partner and ally for them going forward and whether we would remain in Afghanistan until we were assured of success in taking care of the extremists,” Gates said.

Making progress against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan will encourage Pakistani leaders that the United States intends to stand by its allies, Gates said. “As we make progress and as they make progress, their incentive to change this approach, to opt strategically to partner with the United States, becomes significantly more powerful,” he said.

Gates emphasized this on Capitol Hill. “Let me just say … what is essential for our national security is that we have two long-term partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Gates said.

The military relationship is prominent now, “as we try to secure the country and put it in a position where they can accept responsibility for their own security and, frankly, to prevent al-Qaeda from coming back,” the Secretary said.

“But over time, as we are successful in that, the civilian component and the development component of our relationship with Afghanistan will become predominant,” he continued. “We may have a small, residual military training and equipping role with Afghanistan in the future, but this goes to the point I made in my testimony to the Senate: We must not repeat the mistake of 1989 and turn our backs on these folks. And when we've got the security situation with them under control, then the civilian and the development part must be the preponderant part of our relationship far into the future.”

"The United States will continue to work with the Afghan government and military, even after transferring security responsibility to the Afghans," he noted.

“We will not repeat the mistakes of 1989, when we abandoned the country only to see it descend into chaos, and then into Taliban hands,” Gates, who was the deputy director of central intelligence at the time, told senators.

"The border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan is the epicenter of extremist jihadism: the historic place where native and foreign Muslims defeated one superpower and, in their view, caused its collapse at home. Paramilitary fighters took on the Soviet Union after its occupation of Afghanistan in 1979. They fought against the Red Army for years until Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev pulled out the last troops in 1988. “For [extremists] to be seen to defeat the sole remaining superpower in the same place would have severe consequences for the United States and the world," said Gates.

“Less than five years after the last Soviet tank crossed the Termez Bridge out of Afghanistan,” he said, “Islamic militants launched their first attack on the World Trade Center in New York. We cannot afford to make a similar mistake again.”

IT'S NOT THE CANDIDATE...

Columnist Walter Shapiro predictably helped to launch a Palin Derailment movement today with his article:  "How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination." You can read his article here: SHAPIRO  But I would encourage you not to waste your time.

Shapiro, like many other columnists and politicos are speculating on how the numbers game will turn out for the 2012 election.  To wit: "...This is Palin time whether you believe that she is "The Divine Sarah" (as Sarah Bernhardt was once known) or the 21st century version of Barry Goldwater who will lead the Republican Party into the abyss. True believers stress her megawatt incandescence and her Facebook leadership of the conservative tea-party movement at time when all other Republicans seem pallid. Skeptics scoff at the hoopla and argue that the Republican establishment would never nominate someone who, according to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, 71 percent of voters describe as "not qualified to be president.."

CNN/Opinion Research poll?

His analysis is quite correct if you assess the political winds according to politics as usual.  But what he and the "inside-the-beltway-genre" do not get yet is that it is no longer politics as usual. Never mind the Town Hall meeting crowds. Don't even take into consideration the "House Call" turnout last week, called out by Representative Michele Bachmann.  And forget about the massive 1.2 million Washington D.C. turn out in September, and the Conservative Constitutional Convention happening at this very moment.

Newton Gingrich has also tried to spin the various movements into another "contract with America."  But he doesn't get it either.

When has anyone seen this kind of turn out, this kind of involvement, this kind of grass-roots organization by any political group in recent history? Even Ronald Reagan did not have a grass-roots movement such as this. I am leaving out the Barack Obama Presidential campaign, because that was driven by a candidate, with all the attendant rhetoric, big money and campaign promises that go with a campaign.

In fact, It is quite the opposite.  The Conservative movements have no candidates. The movement is driving the candidates.  If New York 23 told any tale, it was, that if you want the grass roots Conservative support you had better be the Conservative that talks the talk and walks the walk.  Hoffman of NY23, a complete unknown, nearly beat his well-known Democrat Opponent, and in fact, the votes are not all in yet, and the outcome of that election might still change due to absentee ballot inclusions.

In typical Beltway Zombiness Shapiro expounds, "But Palin would not be a lucky fringe candidate who won a caucus or two; she would be a universally known charismatic figure who could beat the party establishment in this conservative state."  (South Carolina).  Get that?  "Universally known charismatic figure."

According to Shapiro-politics-as-usual dynamics, Sarah Palin's possible candidacy has nothing to do with how accurately she represents  the Conservative Movement's  agenda.  Shaprio, Beltway, & Co. are stuck in the National Socialist Obama Mesmerization campaign mode.

What the National Socialist Democrats, the "Moderate" Republicans, and their mouth-pieces don't get, is that if Sarah Palin fell on her head and suddenly started spouting liberal rhetoric, the Conservative Movement would shift its focus to someone who would represent them.  They don't get that it's not the candidate.

It's the Constitution, Stupid.

The attacks on Sarah Palin are attacks on you and me.

The attacks on Sarah Palin are attacks on you and me.

Be certain that is the case, and pay no attention to the ruckus. Whether by design or by agreement or by tacit consent, political pundits, "the media," any of the Sarah Palin opposition, are attacking Sarah Palin not only to get Sarah Palin, but to get to you and me.

Who is the "you and me" I am talking about?

It is you and I, who have been referred to as the "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat."

It has been said of you and me that we "get bitter... cling to guns or religion or (have) antipathy to people who aren’t like them or (have) anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain...(our)... frustrations..."

It was also said about the Tea Party Movement, and you know by whom, that "This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”

We are the people with the belief system, principles, and the culture that our President is continually apologizing for, when he sets foot on another country.

The Homeland Security Department said of our soldiers and sailors, "...“Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat..."

But we should not take this personally, should we?

We should not take it personally that they attack Sarah Palin as incoherent, ignorant, and inexperienced.

We should not take personally that every one of Sarah Palin's shortcomings, is what the Palin opposition projects onto all of us.

And they STILL do not get her resignation and why she did it.

Any one of us would have done the same thing, but even today in the Huffington Post, quoting the Anchorage Daily News, the attacks continue saying that "Palin's Story doesn't Hold up," that the claim of the drain on state finances due to ethics complaints is not true, because the staff who handled them was going to be paid anyway.

Apparently the Anchorage Daily News is unable to compute that while the staff is handling ethics complaints they are not conducting other vital state business. It is no wonder Newspapers across the country are going bankrupt. Apparently while reporters are on coffee breaks, playing video games on the internet on company time, or twiddling their thumbs, it doesn't matter, because "they are getting paid anyway."

It is as plain as the nose on your face.

They attack Sarah Palin to get to You and Me, and they do it because we see through their inconsistencies.

They attack Sarah Palin, because they know we will vote for her, and for anyone that will stand up for the Constitution, who will work to preserve our Freedoms, and they know, that because of this their days are numbered.  They know that WE are Sarah Palin, and that Sarah Palin is US, and so continues the attempt to thwart a movement that is unstoppable.

The more she is attacked, the stronger the outrage. The more we are attacked, the stronger our movement will get.

VANGUARD OF FREEDOM

New Public Affairs Chief Sets Out to Transform Communications Processes By Donna Miles American Forces Press Service

When Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates tapped Price Floyd to run the Defense Department’s public affairs operation, he gave him two basic marching orders: improve the way the department communicates -- especially to young people -- and solicit feedback in the process. Price Floyd, the Pentagon’s new principal deputy assistant secretary of public affairs, is setting out to carry out Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ charge to improve the way the department communicates and generate feedback in the process. DoD photo by D. Myles Cullen So one week into the job as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, Floyd is taking a fresh look at traditional public affairs and strategic communications practices with an eye toward making them more responsive, more relevant, more inclusive and more transparent. Gone will be the days, he said, when the department released information and conveyed messages hoping they’d reach receptive ears and eyes and convince skeptical audiences at home and abroad. The new goal will be better-targeted communications that reach groups not necessarily linked into traditional media outlets, and mechanisms that not only accept, but also solicit, feedback. Floyd said it’s evident in his discussions with Gates that he’s “focused like a laser beam” on communicating better with the department’s audiences. “And he wants to hear feedback,” Floyd said. “He wants to know what people think about our policies and initiatives.” Gates has made no secret of his dissatisfaction with the way the U.S. government, including the Defense Department, communicates with its own members, the American public and the world. “Public relations was invented in the United States, yet we are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals,” he said during a November 2007 Landon Lecture speech at Kansas State University. “It is just plain embarrassing that al-Qaida is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.” Gates repeats that mantra regularly, citing the strategic consequences of a public affairs organization he calls too slow and inflexible in light of the realities of the 21st century. That’s particularly troublesome, he said, in light of a ruthless and versatile enemy that’s proven capable of reaching its own target audiences through a variety of means – both ancient and modern. “Are we organized properly … when we’re being out-communicated by a guy in a cave?” Gates lamented during a May 2008 address at the American Academy of Diplomacy. So while Floyd is still navigating his way through the Pentagon, still meeting his staff and has yet to organize the stacks of paperwork already covering his desk, he’s wasting no time getting to the task of moving the Defense Department’s communications efforts to the fast track. The goal, he said, is to take advantage of 21st-century technology and approaches and to institutionalize them so they have a lasting impact on how the department conducts public affairs. After 17 years at the State Department, most recently as director of media affairs, and two years as external relations director for the Center for New American Security, the 44-year-old Floyd has witnessed vast changes in the way information is distributed and shared. He’s watched technology blur the lines between audiences, so a message that goes to one group is likely to reach many other groups. “You have to be aware of, no matter who you are speaking to, all the possible audiences that may hear it and then interpret it in a different way,” Floyd said. Meanwhile, the “social media” -- blogs, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and Twitter, among them -- have revolutionized information-sharing. These forums have become the information tool of choice among the “millennial generation” -- the 18-to-25-year-olds Gates referred to, many of whom don’t read newspapers, tune in to network news or visit official Web sites. This is a group Gates is particularly interested in reaching, not only in the United States, but also abroad. He emphasized this point in April when asked during a question-and-answer session at the Marine Corps War College in Quantico, Va., what he was looking for in his top public affairs post. “I want somebody who can tell us how the Department of Defense communicates with our own people, most of whom are 18 to 25 years old,” Gates said. “And somebody who can communicate with people that same age around the world, where we've got operations going on.” Floyd understands the importance of this demographic. “They are the future of recruitment, they are our future educators, they are the future people we will need to support our policies,” he said. “The bottom line is, they are our future.” Floyd said he plans to expand efforts already under way at the Defense Department to tap into social media outlets to reach audiences not reachable through other, more traditional, means. “How they communicate, and what they communicate is completely different than what we were doing just a couple of years ago,” he said. “It makes no sense for us not to be a part of that. We don’t play in that arena to our own detriment.” But a secondary benefit of the social media – one Floyd said he plans to extend to other public affairs endeavors – is that it promotes the kind of discourse Gates wants to develop. For a long time, the new technologies represented little more than “a better bullhorn” to broadcast the Defense Department’s messages to more people, Floyd said. “But now, that’s changed,” he said. “It’s not just better one-way communication; it’s better two-way communication. It’s not just us reaching people; it is them reaching us, too.” This discussion can have tremendous payoff, he said. It gives people a way to actively participate in policymaking, offering suggestions and constructive viewpoints. But Floyd said it also makes the important point – subtle as it might appear at face value -- that the Defense Department wants to hear from the public. “What we need to do is make sure our policies are explained and understood by the widest possible audience, and that we allow that audience to respond,” he said. “They are not simply being told that this is the new policy, and they have got to live with it,” he said. “Even in cases where they may disagree with the policy, because it was developed with transparency and in a way that allowed their voices to be heard, they have a sense of ownership in it. They know that their views were heard.” This approach does a lot more than simply make people feel good, Floyd said. It promotes a level of understanding that’s critical to building support: understanding among the American people, understanding in the world community and understanding among local people where U.S. troops are operating. That, Floyd said, has a direct impact on the safety of those troops and the effectiveness of their operations. If the people of Iraq and Afghanistan understand “what we are doing, why we are there, what we are doing to help support their government and therefore, what their government is doing to help them, it makes the job of our troops on the ground a lot easier,” he said. Commanders on the ground realize that this understanding can mean “life or death for their troops,” Floyd said. “So getting it right means saving their own lives, and the lives of the people in the countries where they are operating,” he said. “That makes it imperative that we get it right.”

The Alaska Fund Trust

"Over the past months it became increasingly clear that supporters of Governor Palin needed to help defend against the onslaught of frivolous attacks against her. These baseless accusations are designed to inhibit her ability to focus on the issues Alaskans truly care about and force massive personal debt on her and her family. I joined with fellow Alaskans in forming the Alaska Fund Trust to help alleviate the Governor's legal debt incurred while performing her job as well as eliminate the incentive for future attacks by her opponents. In doing so, we have created one of the most restrictive and transparent legal funds in history."

Trustee: Kristan Cole

The Alaska Fund Trust is the official legal fund created to defend the integrity of the Alaska Governor's Office from an onslaught of political attacks launched against current Governor Sarah Palin, the First Family, and state-employed colleagues.

These baseless accusations have cost Alaska more than $1 million in public monies to defend, and Governor Palin has incurred more than half a million dollars in personal debt defending her official actions as Governor.

The Alaska Fund Trust was formed by Alaskans and will be funded by Alaskans and their fellow Americans. Our donors are everyday citizens that believe caustic political games cannot be allowed to stop the progress of the people's elected representatives. Since her Vice-Presidential nomination, the Governor has become a target for local partisans, national professional political operatives, and defenders of the status quo.

They have attempted to discredit Governor Palin and limit her effectiveness in reforming government, based on her solid conservative principles.

Governor Palin, her family, and her staff had to endure a major investigation in which the Governor was cleared of any wrongdoing.

However, the exoneration did not occur until hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal debt piled up for the family. In addition, countless unfounded ethics charges have been filed. Unfortunately, it is illegal in Alaska to discuss the filing of an ethics complaint, much less its merit. More troublesome is that there is no punishment for filing frivolous complaints.

Therefore opponents continue to drum up ideas, file complaints, and leak them to the media. As the complaints disappear due to lack of evidence, there is no media follow-up on a blatant, costly abuse of the process.

For Alaskans, the time has come to end the siege on our government by political tricksters. Enough is enough. With the help of reform-minded advocates from across our nation, we will stand up for what is right.

Your maximum contribution of $150.00 will allow the Governor, her family, and her colleagues to retire their legal debt at no cost to Alaskans and reduce the incentive for mischief by her opponents. Together, we can help Governor Palin and future elected officials turn back the tide of overtly partisan and unnecessarily personal political attacks.

Halfway through her first term as Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin has done so much for her state and her nation. She has been a champion for much needed transparency and accountability in government. She has sought to protect the fundamental freedoms ensured by our Constitution.

And she has never forgotten the importance of lowering energy costs for Alaskans and striving for energy security for America. Still, there is much left to be done, so let's help Governor Palin continue the job she was elected to do without all these petty distractions.

MORE INFO/DONATE

THE COOCH AND HIS COOCHIES

Wait a second. Hold on.

You do know that community organizers make a living from grants and donations, right?

Yes they do. Here is an example of how that might work.The organization, that is, the board of directors of the organization, which is usually a non-profit 501-C3 tax exempt organization hires (appoints) an executive director.

Depending on the organization's goals and objectives, the Executive Director may be granted certain duties including the hiring or commissioning a grant writer to apply for grants to further fund the organization.

That organization can apply to other non-profits, individuals, foundations, which are known to donate money for various causes, and the organization may get funding for their various projects in this manner.

This is done in communities nation-wide, and there are specialized groups and organizations, also non-profit, that specialize in training people to apply for grants and on how to obtain them.

And in fact there are networks of non-profits, also funded by grants that do specialty training for other community non profit organizations... and so on.

Where does all that "donated" money come from?

Philantropic Individuals or Foundations. Foundations might be set up as a fund, a fixed sum of money that sits in a bank account and collects interest or because of its investments makes additional money as "interest". When that fund is, say for the purpose of this example, one million dollars, that's a hefty amount of interest that fund collects. The interest or money made from investment is then given out to "deserving" applicants as a grant. The main amount of money is never touched, as that money stays there to collect the interest or make money from it being invested, so that additional moneys can be available for the next funding year.

There are all kinds of foundations and groups that give grants such as scholarships, operating funds for specific projects, etc.

There are even some organizations who donate money specifically for community organizing and activism, such as funding a protest march, etc.

Now, I did not intend this article as an exact description of the Granting Community, I just wanted to point out that this exists, it is there, and you can do further research if you want.

What I do want to point out is that we have a President, who was a community organizer and is also a lawyer.

Now, therefore, our Community Organizing Officer in Chief, or COOCH, as I call him, has enormous resources at his disposal, besides the coffers of our tax money treasury that he has suddenly found himself salivating over, to fund all his favorite community organizing projects.

He has all the Foundations and funding sources across the entire country and international ones too, in Europe and other countries to apply to for grants to fund all the social programs, health insurance programs etc.

Now combine this with his friends in the House of Reps and in the Senate, which I call the Cooch's Coochies, and you have one hell of a non-profit community organizing apparatus that can fund everything to their heart's delight without touching one single copper penny of our tax dollars.

Hell, they would be in Grant Heaven, writing grant proposals day and night, funding this and funding that.

And wouldn't that just be Coochie Coochie.

VAN

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin celebrates a landmark agreement between TransCanada and ExxonMobil to partner together in building Alaska’s natural gas pipeline – the largest and most complex construction project in North America. Governor Palin, center, is joined by (left to right) Marty Massey, Joint interest Manager for Exxon Mobil; Alaska Department of Natural Resources Deputy Commissioner Marty Rutherford; Rich Krueger, President of Exxon Mobil Production Company; Hal Kvisle, President and CEO of TransCanada Corporation; and Dennis McConaghy, Executive Vice-President of Pipeline Strategy and Development.

Historic Agreement Moves AGIA Forward Governor Applauds Private-Sector Alignment

Dallas, Texas - Mark the calendar on June 11 as the day that TransCanada Corporation and ExxonMobil announced they have reached terms on a gas pipeline development agreement. TransCanada and ExxonMobil have agreed to work together to progress the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) Gas Pipeline Project.

AGIA was created as a commercial vehicle for advancing the Alaska gas pipeline project through the first stages of development of what will be the largest private energy project in the world. "In a volatile world with growing energy needs, the time is now to develop Alaska's valuable resource for the environment, economy and national security,” Governor Palin said. She further described this historic announcement as “very encouraging and exciting, but certainly no surprise, because AGIA was crafted to allow just this type of commercial alignment to take place.”

For the State of Alaska and Alaskans, the owners of the North Slope’s world-class hydrocarbon resources, this event represents progress on this long lead-time project. Once construction begins, Alaska will experience economic growth not seen in over a generation, including potentially thousands of jobs created through construction of an open-access pipeline, as well as significant revenues generated from the production and sale of the gas.

Governor Palin said, “The Legislature voted in support of AGIA and subsequently supported issuing TransCanada the AGIA License because the legislators recognized the importance of this investment to our state’s economic future. AGIA and its ‘must haves’ protect the value of the resources that belong to all Alaskans. Of course, we recognize that this step is not the end of the AGIA process, but it is the natural evolution for a project of this magnitude.”

Last Wednesday in Dallas, Governor Palin met with Hal Kvisle, TransCanada president, and Rich Kruger, president of ExxonMobil Production Company, to discuss the proposed alignment. Governor Palin said, “The meeting not only confirmed TransCanada’s commitment to the AGIA License, but also ExxonMobil’s commitment to continue to advance the Alaska Gasline project with TransCanada, including as additional alignments are reached with other stakeholders.”

"For TransCanada and ExxonMobil, the alignment provides a mutual benefit by bringing together the key skills of two world-class companies to effectively advance a project of maximum value and mutual benefit. For other producer and explorer companies, this project ensures their discovered resources can be transported to market, and at the lowest reasonable transportation cost...

"For America, this announcement means an affordable and clean source of energy is on its way and that, as a nation, we are much closer to domestic energy independence. “ExxonMobil recognizes that the State of Alaska has set a course for commercializing the North Slope’s trillions of cubic feet of known natural gas reserves,” the governor said. “By recognizing the value of Alaska’s relationship with TransCanada, ExxonMobil has made a strategic decision that I believe makes good sense. Alaskans will also be pleased to know that TransCanada’s obligations to the state as the AGIA licensee are 100 percent intact and unaltered by this alignment with ExxonMobil,” a fact that was echoed by Kvisle.

AGIA involved an open and competitive bidding process and resulted in granting a license to TransCanada to move the project forward through one or more Open Seasons and eventual FERC certification. By providing matching funds during the risky development phase of this project, the state has secured commitments from TransCanada to conduct an Open Season by 2010.

The mandated commercial provisions of the AGIA License also protect the long-term interests of the state by ensuring that pipeline transportation tariffs will remain low. This will protect the “net back” value of the state’s natural gas, which will provide Alaska’s economic base for future generations.

These same provisions guarantee that new gas discoveries will be provided access to the pipeline and that any expansions of the pipeline will not result in tariffs that unduly burden new explorers for gas. The next major milestone in the AGIA process is the 2010 Open Season, slated to begin sometime in the second quarter of 2010. The regulatory, design, engineering and cost work leading up to this, and the feedback received in the form of commitments made, will play an important role in continuing the progress made to date.

AGIA Facts:

Governor Palin introduced Alaskans to AGIA in January 2007, promising swift movement to get Alaska's gas to market.

Alaska legislators passed AGIA 58 to 1 in May 2007.

Five entities expressed interest in applying for the AGIA license to proceed with specific commitments from the State of Alaska.

Private-sector competition created by AGIA encouraged another pipeline project, Denali, to begin down another path to bring Alaska's gas to market.

Alaska legislators awarded the AGIA license to TC Alaska in August 2008.

TransCanada pre-filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in May 2009.

When built, the natural gas pipeline is expected to carry roughly 4 bcf/day, supplying up to 8 percent of the United States' annual consumption.

TransCanada is a leader in developing and operating energy infrastructure in North America.

ExxonMobil is the largest publicly traded international oil and gas company.

PALIN APPOINTS SULLIVAN ALASKA A.G.

Former Marine Officer and Assistant Secretary of State

Daniel S. Sullivan to serve as Alaska's Attorney General

Soldotna, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin yesterday announced the appointment of Alaska attorney and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel S. Sullivan to serve as Alaska’s Attorney General.

“Dan Sullivan brings to the attorney general position a broad array of expertise, experience, and judgment that will significantly benefit Alaska,” Governor Palin said. “He has a strong Alaska legal background and public service record in the state. His leadership and negotiating achievements at the highest levels of the U.S. government, including on issues of vital importance to the State of Alaska, will help ensure that the interests of Alaska and our citizens are advanced and safeguarded.

“His recent work in Washington on issues including the Alaska natural gas pipeline, Arctic policy, Law of the Sea, and opening aviation markets overseas has already benefited Alaska.”

“I am deeply honored to be selected by Governor Palin as Alaska’s next attorney general,” Sullivan said. “It is a privilege to serve this great state and its citizens. I will work tirelessly with the governor and the members of the Legislature to continue to emphasize integrity throughout Alaska’s legal system, as well as justice and economic opportunities for all of Alaska’s citizens.”

Sullivan is one of a select number of Alaska attorneys who has held judicial clerkships on both the highest state and highest federal courts in Alaska. He served as a judicial law clerk for Chief Justice Warren Matthews of the Alaska Supreme Court in Anchorage and for Judge Andrew Kleinfeld of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fairbanks. He also served briefly as an appellate court staff attorney for the Alaska Court of Appeals, which focuses on criminal cases.

“Alaska is fortunate to have a fair, well-run legal system supported by outstanding judges and dedicated public servants,” Sullivan said. “I look forward to working with them, especially the officials of the Department of Law.

“Our state faces many challenges and opportunities,” he said. “We must reduce crime at home, ensure integrity in our public process, realize our rights as a state in the federal system, get our gas to market, and produce energy. As an Alaska lawyer, Marine, and diplomat, I am ready to use whatever skills and tools are appropriate and necessary to help Alaska achieve success.” After his Alaska state and federal judicial clerkships, Sullivan practiced corporate law and commercial litigation in Anchorage with Perkins, Coie, LLP. In July 2002, Sullivan left private practice in Anchorage to serve his country in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, as a director on the National Security Council and National Economic Council of the White House. He began this position after being awarded a prestigious White House Fellowship – one of only three Alaskans to have been selected for this honor.

In 2006, Sullivan was nominated by the president and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy, and business affairs. In that capacity, he served as a senior advisor to the secretary of state and other top U.S. government officials on the formulation and execution of economic, energy, trade, finance, transportation, telecommunications, and Arctic policies.

Sullivan led and managed the State Department Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs with approximately 200 federal employees and was responsible for leading and overseeing several international negotiations of strategic importance to the United States. As assistant secretary of state, Sullivan focused on international energy issues, including working with the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects. Sullivan also served as the U.S. Governing Board member to the Paris-based International Energy Agency – the world’s premier energy security organization.

“Dan’s extensive knowledge of global energy issues will help Alaska fulfill its potential as a critical source of America’s energy security while also lowering energy costs for Alaskans,” Governor Palin said. “I am pleased that he will continue his distinguished record of public service as Alaska’s attorney general.” A Marine Corps infantry and reconnaissance officer, Sullivan served for several years with Anchorage-based Echo Company, 4th Reconnaissance Battalion – the Marine Corps Reserve’s premier cold weather reconnaissance unit. While working at the White House, he was recalled from the reserves to active duty service from December 2004 until April 2006 and served as a strategic advisor to the commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), spending substantial time deployed in the CENTCOM theater of operations. He is currently a member of the Marine Corps’ Individual Ready Reserve.

Sullivan has been a member of the Alaska Bar Association since 2000. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, earning a bachelor’s degree in economics, and graduated cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center, obtaining a juris doctor and master’s of science in foreign service joint degree. He was an Articles Editor on the Georgetown Law Journal and a contributing author to the Georgetown Criminal Procedure Project. He is the recipient of numerous professional, academic, and military awards.

Sullivan has been married for almost 15 years to Julie Fate Sullivan of Fairbanks. Julie is the daughter of former Representative Bud Fate and Mary Jane Fate. The Sullivans have three daughters.

DRUGS AND TERRORISTS

KABUL, Afghanistan – Afghan national security forces and coalition forces destroyed a weapons and narcotics cache in Shahidi Hasas district, Uruzgan province today.

Combined forces conducted a search of compounds in a village known to be a staging area for militant activities. Numerous false floors and hidden compartments in walls were discovered. The forces found 150 pounds of black tar opium, 25 gallons of homemade explosives, multiple weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. They also found improvised explosive device-making materials, including 250 pounds of ammonium nitrate, pressure plates and detonators.

The cache was destroyed with no collateral damage or injuries. The patrol is still ongoing.

ANSF and coalition forces have increased their patrols in southern Afghanistan to prevent militant attacks against Afghanistan's infrastructure and citizens.

ALSO:

Afghan and coalition forces confiscated 17 bags of black tar opium and materiel used for explosives as well as rocket propelled grenade rounds, AK-47 assault rifles and ammunition in Nad Ali District, Helmand province. Four suspected Taliban militants were detained and several were killed in the operation.

The combined force was conducting an operation targeting a senior Taliban commander who organizes and executes improvised explosive devices strikes and rocket attacks against Afghan national security forces and coalition forces in Nad Ali and Nawa Districts.

As Afghan and coalition forces were patrolling to the targeted area, armed enemy combatants engaged them from two locations. Friendly forces returned fire, killing several militants.

Eliminating the immediate threat, the combined force continued to their objective, searching several compounds without incident. At one compound, Afghan and coalition forces detained three suspects. On another compound a man was detained.

As forces continued their search, several individuals were killed when they brandished knives and attempted to assault the force despite warnings to cooperate.

More than 50 women and children were protected during this operation. No non-combatants were harmed.

TODAY IN VANGUARD OF FREEDOM

TEAM VANGUARD OF FREEDOM: THE NETWORK

Cybersecurity Poses Unprecedented Challenge to National Security, Lynn Says

By John J. Kruzel

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2009 – Threats to U.S.-based computer networks -- posed by the intelligence branches of foreign countries and teenage hackers alike -- represent an unprecedented national security challenge, the Pentagon’s No. 2 official said today.

Making cyber warfare unique is the breadth of potential sources, plus the speed and scope of such attacks, Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said.

“Once the province of nations, the ability to destroy via cyber means now also rests in the hands of small groups and individuals: from terrorist groups to organized crime, hackers to industrial spies to foreign intelligence services,” he told the Center for Strategic and International Studies here.

Lynn said the common thread among three marquee reviews of U.S. cybersecurity is the need for greater public awareness of both the threat to the country and how it’s prepared to defend against digital attacks. He cautioned that cyber warfare is not an emerging or distant risk.

“This is not some future threat. The cyber threat is here today; it is here now,” said Lynn, whose remarks today come several weeks after President Barack Obama announced plans to appoint a cyber security coordinator to oversee the government’s effort.

The 21st century U.S. military, like American society at large, is dependent on modern technology that is subject to vulnerabilities, Lynn said.

“Just like our national dependence, there is simply no exaggerating our military dependence on our information networks: the command and control of our forces, the intelligence and logistics on which they depend, the weapons technologies we develop and field – they all depend on our computer systems and networks,” he said. “Indeed, our 21st century military simply cannot function without them.”

Lynn said the government’s roughly 15,000 networks – connecting 7 million computers, information technology devices and servers – all make for tempting targets.

Underscoring the clear and present danger cyberwarfare engenders, Lynn said there’s evidence that more than 100 foreign intelligence organizations are trying to hack into U.S. networks. Lynn also cited a top intelligence official who said both Russia and China are capable of using electronic means to disrupt elements of the nation’s infrastructure.

Speaking about the scope and speed of cyber warfare, Lynn pointed to the example of Estonia, which was victimized by an attack allegedly carried out by Russian operatives. A series of data-flooding attacks lasting about three weeks in early 2007 brought down the Web sites of several daily newspapers and forced Estonia’s largest bank to shut down its online banking network.

Some cyber tactics can be carried out in less than one second, which increases the need for government preparedness.

“If attacked in milliseconds, we can’t take days to organize and coordinate our defenses,” he said. “If our networks were to be disrupted or damaged, we’d need to respond rapidly at network speed before the networks could become compromised and ongoing operations and the lives of our military are threatened.

“In short,” he continued, “we have to be just as fast, if not faster, than those who would do us harm.”

The Defense Department is considering a sub-unified command for cyberspace, Lynn said, though a decision hasn’t yet been reached on what shape the command might take.

William J. Lynn III served as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) from 1997 until 2001 and for four years prior to that he was the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Before entering the Department of Defense in 1993, Lynn served for six years on the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy as liaison to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Prior to 1987, he was a senior fellow at the National Defense University and was on the professional staff of the Institute for Defense Analyses. From 1982 to 1985, he served as the executive director of the Defense Organization Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Lynn also has experience in the private sector from 2001-2009. He served as senior vice president of Government Operations and Strategy at Raytheon Company. He also served as executive vice president of DFI International, a Washington-based management consulting firm, from 2001 to 2002.

He's a graduate of Dartmouth College, has a law degree from Cornell Law School and a master’s in public affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. His publications include a book, Toward a More Effective Defense, as well as articles in various newspapers and professional journals. He has been recognized for numerous professional and service contributions, including three DoD medals for distinguished public service, the Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and awards from the Army, Navy and Air Force.

TODAY IN VANGUARD OF FREEDOM

TEAM VANGUARD OF FREEDOM

The Obie One Administration's New James Bond,

Panetta, gets MK-ultra'd.

Leon Panetta has been at the CIA just a few months and already he is remarkably adept at the psychological manipulation of the press and public with covert ops, using media events to neutralize political opponents.

This is not in the least surprising, considering he served with the masterful Clintonistas as Chief of Staff, but I didn't think he would have been so eager to utilize his new found weapon so quickly.

Why, just a few weeks ago he masterfully shut up the Speaker of the House Pelosi when she spewed her venomous CIA liar- liar-pants-on-fire diatribe.

Next came Dick Cheney. Accuse him of that which he is passionately trying to prevent: a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and he will shut up too.

But the targets aren't just Pelosi or Cheney. It was anyone else who chose to probe or even question the CIA: Attack Pelosi, Cheney, shut down everyone else as unpatriotic or un-CIA. Brilliant.

Hell, James Bond Pannetta even had conservative pundits defending the CIA, which is now ostensibly quietly taking a back-seat to the FBI on terrorist matters.

You see, there has been no outrage, save a few conservatives, at the fact that there have already been three terror attacks on U.S. soil, by so-called "lone-wolf" assasins, just days apart.

To wit: The attack on Tiller, the late-term abortion doctor, by a "right wing" shooter; The attack at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., no less; And the attack at a U.S. Army recruiting station in Arkansas.

Now, mind you, these attackers were probably not Bourne Identity types, mind control programmed assasins, but where was the FBI, and the CIA? THESE WERE THREE TERROR ATTACKS ON U.S. SOIL, regardless of the political affiliation of the shooters, since Obama assumed the Presidency.

Three single-home runs, right here at home. Are we supposed to wait around for the inevitable grand slam, while the Obie One Administration distracts the media by sending terrorist suspects to the beach in Bermuda, while James Bond Panetta is lambasting Dick Cheney, and while the un-indicted co-conspirator media spends its time defending David Letterman's child sex abuse "jokes?"

WHY is the CIA not demanding its role back at once, instead of quietly sitting back and letting the Obie One Administration subjugate it in favor of the FBI police action role?

The mission of the CIA as stated by them is:

"We are the nation's first line of defense. We accomplish what others cannot accomplish and go where others cannot go. We carry out our mission by:

*Collecting information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries and provides the basis for decision and action.

*Producing timely analysis that provides insight, warning and opportunity to the President and decisionmakers charged with protecting and advancing America's interests.

*Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives."

Chief Secret Agent Panetta should use this mission statement to thwart and prevent terrorist attacks, instead of using his office to attack political opponents.

He did an outstanding job against our nation's enemies in 1964-1966 as an Army Intelligence Officer for which he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal.

Our nation calls on him to excel once again.

Mr. Panetta, back-off Cheney and Pelosi. Get Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Kim Jong IL, Ahmadinejad, and their cronies.

TODAY IN VANGUARD OF FREEDOM

TEAM VANGUARD OF FREEDOM: THE NETWORK

McChrystal Assumes Command in Afghanistan

by Donna Miles

Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, vowing that the coalition will prevail despite a struggle he conceded will be "long and hard."

"2009 will be a critical year for Afghanistan, and a critical year for our coalition," McChrystal said at a morning assumption-of-command ceremony at the ISAF headquarters in Kabul. "Although we face many challenges, with your steadfast commitment, professionalism and dedication and with the help and support of our Afghan friends and the international community, we will prevail."

McChrystal acknowledged the legacy and achievements of Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, whom he replaces as commander of ISAF and U.S. Forces Afghanistan. "His tireless efforts, clear thinking and calm direction have placed ISAF in a position to develop real momentum in the coming months," McChrystal said. "To a fellow soldier and friend – my gratitude and thanks."

The incoming commander acknowledged the challenges ahead to achieve a peaceful, stable and free Afghanistan. "It will require the full commitment and talent of each of us, as well as the continued support and resolve of the International community," he told an assembly of representatives from Afghanistan, the United Nations, the NATO alliance and 14 non-NATO nations supporting the coalition. "But together we will prevail."

While this solidarity is the coalition's strength, "it is not without cost," he said, acknowledging the losses and sacrifices experienced by many during the past eight years.

"Their sacrifices and the contributions that you and your families are making today are critical to the future and stability of this country, the stability of this region and to the security of all of our nations," he said.

Central to the mission, he said, are the people of Afghanistan themselves.

"In reality, they are the mission," he said. "We must protect them from violence – whatever its nature. We must respect their religion and their traditions. Each of us, from rifleman to regional commander, from village to city, must execute our mission with the realization that displaying respect, cultural sensitivity, accountability and transparency are essential to our critical task of gaining the support and trust of the Afghan people.

"If we gain that trust, we cannot lose," he said. "If we lose that trust, we cannot win."

McChrystal emphasized the critical balance the mission demands. "While operating with care, we will not be timid," he said. "We must accept risks, endure hardships and find strength within ourselves to be worthy of the cause for which so many have fallen."

And as the conflict approaches its eight-year anniversary, McChrystal said, it's important to "recapture the excitement and inspiration that ignited this country upon the fall of the Taliban in 2001."

"We must rededicate ourselves to the Afghan people and help them build a government and a future for their country that they can be proud of," he said.

He acknowledged the task has no simple solution or silver bullet. "The situation is complicated, and success will not be quick – or easy," he said. "This effort will try our endurance, challenge habits and processes with which we are comfortable and force us to adapt how we operate."

Mistakes are inevitable as this effort continues, he conceded. "But we will focus and learn – and learn quickly," he said.

McChrystal cited additional NATO troops who will deploy this year to key regions of Afghanistan, providing the manpower required to conduct "population-centric counterinsurgency operations." These forces will partner closely with the increasingly capable Afghan security forces.

"Capitalizing on this strength and new authorities, we can work together to unhinge the nexus between narco-criminals, venal officials and insurgents – not disproportionately targeting the most vulnerable participants in this corrosive industry," McChrystal said. "And finally, an increased focus on the regional aspects of this conflict will pay dividends across the borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Building on what's already been accomplished, McChrystal vowed, "we will do more."

"Together, we will foster reliable security and create the space and the discipline for responsive government, sustainable development initiatives and a new flourishing of Afghanistan's vibrant and varied culture," he said. "We are all partners in this endeavor, and I am honored to be part of this team."

TODAY IN VANGUARD OF FREEDOM

TEAM VANGUARD OF FREEDOM: THE NETWORK

Unaccountability as Political Strategy and Foreign Policy

It's called "passing" or "avoiding" the buck.  This can come only from those who are so adept at skating or slacking and avoiding work, while pretending to actually be producing something, and are in fact avoiding being accountable for their actions.

I point this out during this, the week of the 60th anniversary of George Orwell's famed book, "1984."

Although Orwell did not coin the term "DOUBLE-SPEAK," if he had, it would probably be defined as:  "... words deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them."  (wikipedia).

Terrorism in Obama-speak we now know as "man-caused disaster."  Nappy (Janet Napolitano) says she wants to demonstrate that, "...we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur..."

Sure you do.

Unfortunately, it is much more than that.

The logic of their doublespeak is that, if we don't allow the term to be used, then there is no more terrorism, and the administration cannot be held accountable for any attacks on the U.S. during Obama's watch.  If it is a "crime," it is not a TERRORIST attack. So they relegate this to law enforcement instead of treating it as a military attack by TERRORISTS on the homeland.

Where Harry Truman declared that the "buck stops here," meaning that he was ultimately responsible for what happened, in Barry-land they have done away with the buck altogether. 

If there is no terrorism, they cannot be blamed for being weak on Defense.  This is an open invitation to any two-bit TERRORIST to come forward and launch an attack.

This in fact has already occurred.  Do you see the administration clamoring to rectify this?  No, they have essentially ignored the gravity of an attack on U.S. servicemen at a recruiting station in Arkansas that resulted in one fatality.  The attack has been billed as one carried out by a Lone Wolf assasin, that he acted alone, and the "suspect," has actually been quoted as saying that the serviceman deserved to die BECAUSE he was an American Soldier.

That TERRORIST alone has indicted Obama, his entire administration, and their foreign policy is a betrayal of trust of the security of this country.  It is obvious that the weakened Obama policy of appeasement has opened the door to more attacks on this country.  For nearly eight years we had not one terrorist attack on the mainland.  We are just over 100 days into the Obama regime, and a TERRORIST in the heartland feels safe enough to gun-down two of America's proud defenders, at a recruiting station, no less.

Even in Conservative blogs, talk radio, I have not seen enough outrage, nor enough action about this.  This cannot stand, and must be acted upon, not only to bring the perpetrator of the attack to justice, but make those responsible for creating the climate for such an attack, ACCOUNTABLE.

Where is the NINE-ELEVEN "NEVER AGAIN" theme now?  Where is "WE WILL NEVER FORGET."

We must pound this over and over and make it a homeland defense issue immediately, and keep it there until the weak foreign policy is changed so that we can keep our homeland free and secure.

YOU must do this.  It is everyone's responsibility to insist on the safety and security of you and yours today, for who can say where another TERRORIST will strike next.  

Hold the slackers accountable and make them change the Strategy of Unaccountability.

There is an old adage in Public Relations, Propaganda, Psy-ops, etc. that in any action that falls under this purview, "thou shalt not advance the cause or effort of an enemy or opponent."

Yet what do 99 percent of pundits do when they react to the actions or statements of their opponents? They immediately mention what was said by that opponent, and on television and radio, they even re-broadcast the actual segment, incident or episode, and THEN set about to refute it.

The action of doing this is to advance the cause or effort of an enemy or opponent.There are ways to phrase or position responses to one's opponent, without giving them free publicity, valuable air or editorial time and space, and thus doing the enemy or opponent a big favor.

One way is to advance only the cause, purpose, or agenda of YOUR group or effort. That requires some ingenuity, creativity and some very disciplined and diligent effort.

The lazy way is to do it the way it is done now: For example, take the headline: "Obama tells America to spend, spend, spend!" This is followed by the quote, the video, the comments, and then after plastering this all over T.V. and the internet, one gets the opposing view. But the damage has already been done. You have essentially given the opposition valuable, expensive air time and exposure, at no cost to THEM.

The answer to this does not include that their mantras and agendas are ignored. It just means that you oppose it in ways that DO NOT ADVANCE THE enemy or opponent CAUSE, effort, or agenda.One way would be to simply advocate the opposite of what is being forwarded by your opponent.Using the previous example, one would counter with: "PRODUCTION of goods and services is the best stimulus for any economy! PRODUCE, PRODUCE, PRODUCE!" And then turn this into a campaign to promote production.

Another way would be to promote what would actually cause the economy to be stimulated. TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESS, STOP OUT SOURCING BUSINESS TO OTHER COUNTRIES BY ENDING AN UNFAVORABLE AND RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, etc. And then promoting the things that do this, and hammering this message home to congress and to the President, until they hear it.

TODAY any pundit, any cause, any effort, can take the socialist propaganda items, and counter their P.R. efforts with the positive conservative elements of the conservative agenda, and have huge success without advancing the socialist causes.

Another example of this is the following:"The REBRANDING effort of the Republican Party, and the creation of a new organization that is now going to listen to Americans will reshape the party."

The message that this gives is not that the Republican party is being reformed, but that it NEEDS to be reformed, and THAT is actually the message of the Democrats: That there is something wrong with the Republican party.

Yes, this states the argument and refutes it, but IT IS STILL FORWARDING THE OPPOSITION MESSAGE AND AGENDA.

Here is the more positive alternative response. " We, leaders of the Republican party heard the voices of the Tea Parties! We hear you! We got it, and YOU are US and WE are YOU!" Today we unanimously vote to SUPPORT the tea party effort nationwide, and pledge to funnel financing to its causes, and to hell with any democrat socialist policies."

This all said without mentioning anything wrong with the Republican brand or name, etc., and without echoing the message of the opposition.

The action required by Vanguard of Freedom network members and other conservatives, are first to observe examples throughout the internet, Television, and Radio, and then BLOG, email, call and send the message to all bloggers, pundits, spokespersons, etc. TO QUIT ADVANCING THE ENEMY CAUSES, AGENDAS AND MESSAGES, and to get on the proper message of the conservative agenda and promote IT.

Enough with the freebies to the enemies of freedom.

TORTURE, TRUTH, PROPAGANDA, & PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

The cat was thrown out of the bag with the release of the Gitmo "torture" documents. Ann Coulter was right in referring to those actions as "things we do on our first dates."

Actual torture is much more severe. To wit: "El Cerdo" (The Pig), notorious torturer in El Salvador during their civil war. I interviewed one of his victims. She was a school teacher accused of aiding revolutionaries by participating in a teacher's union. She was raped repeatedly, beaten severely, practically sliced to ribbons (she showed me the scars); she was suspended from chains, her feet unable to touch the floor; finally when they were unable to extract any information from her they took her to a dump outside their city limits, shot her, and left her to die. She survived because passers-by found her.

She was in a coma for about a year, and had difficulty remembering her ordeal at first, but began slowly healing her body and recuperating mentally.

THAT, my friends is torture.

When the Gitmo documents were released I almost heard the slap to the heads of terrorists and their collective "DUH," as they realized that all these years they had been duped into believing they were actually being tortured during interrogations.

Any military officer, and even more so, any intelligence officer can tell you that drugs far stronger and more "effective" than sodium pentathol (truth serum) have been around for a very long time. They have the effect of loosening the tongue and make torture unnecessary.

The CIA especially participated in the development of those drugs, and if you are interested, you might want to research the subject: M-K-ULTRA, and read the book, Operation Mind Control, by W.H. Bowart. There are others, but I leave that up to you.

The Whitehouse socialists know all this too. Why, then, all the hullabaloo about prosecuting previous administration officials for the "crime of torture?" It is for the political propaganda value, and its use as a distraction.

As an additional note. When I enlisted in 1974, U.S. soldiers and sailors of that era were the most highly trained, educated, and intelligent fighting force the world had ever seen. It is even more so now. And back then, as now, each soldier and sailor is thoroughly trained on how they are to conduct themselves with the enemy, in battle, and with prisoners of war, whether the enemy are soldiers or terrorists.

That our fighting men and women are depicted as baby killers and people who wound up in the military because they could not or did not get an education is just pure enemy propaganda.

Popular t.v. shows, like '24," and others in which the ethical dilemma of "to torture or not to torture," is posed with the fictional Jack Bauer on one side of the equation and the "ethical" FBI on the other side, is just that: FICTION. The shows promote patriotism, and are seen by the Whitehouse socialists as propaganda tools, but the reality is, (and they know this) that torture is obsolete.

If the use of psycho-tropic drugs seems too absurd to you, just recall what your office buddy told you after you bought him a couple of beers. Was the data reliable? Maybe. Maybe not. That's another matter altogether.

Don't buy into the propaganda, the lies, and the "emergencies." These are just political sleight-of-hand.

TOBY KIETH TRIBUTE TO TROOPS

Photo: Arleigh Burke-Class GM Destroyer

Navy To Commission Guided-Missile Destroyer Truxtun

The Navy’s newest Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, Truxtun, will be commissioned Saturday, April 25, 2009, during an 11 a.m. EDT ceremony at Charleston, S.C.

The Department of Defense reports that:

*Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead will deliver the ceremony's principal address. Carol Leigh Roelker and Susan Scott Martin, descendants of the ship’s namesake, will serve as sponsors of the ship. The ceremony will be highlighted by a time-honored Navy tradition when they give the first order to “man our ship and bring her to life!”

*Designated DDG 103, the destroyer honors Commodore Thomas Truxtun (1755-1822) who embarked upon a seafaring career at age 12. When the Navy was initially organized, he was selected as one of its first six captains on June 4, 1798. Assigned command of the USS Constellation, one of the nation’s new frigates, Truxtun put to sea to prosecute the undeclared naval war with revolutionary France. On Feb. 9, 1799, Truxtun achieved one of his most famous victories when Constellation battered the French warship L’Insurgente into submission in one of the most illustrious battles of the quasi-war with France.

*Five previous Navy ships have been named Truxtun: a brig launched in 1842, two destroyers DD 14 and DD 229, a high speed transport APD 98 (initially designated a destroyer escort DE 282), and a nuclear-powered frigate (DLGN) later re-designated cruiser CGN 35.

*The 53rd Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, Truxtun will be able to conduct a variety of operations, from peacetime presence and crisis management to sea control and power projection. Truxtun will be capable of fighting air, surface and subsurface battles simultaneously and contains a myriad of offensive and defensive weapons designed to apply maritime power to protect U.S. vital interests in an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world.

*Cmdr. Timothy Weber, a native of Decatur, Ga., will become the first commanding officer and lead the crew of 276 officers and enlisted personnel. The 9,200-ton Truxtun was built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Ingalls Operations, Pascagoula, Miss. The ship is 510 feet in length, has a waterline beam of 59 feet, and a navigational draft of 31 feet. Four gas turbine engines will power the ship to speeds in excess of 30 knots.

Foreign Leaders urge Specter not to defect!

The alarming news of the Specter defection quickly moved the Swine Flu Pandemic to the world news back page, as foreign leader after foreign leader beseeched, and pleaded with Specter not to defect.

First on center stage was Iranian leader My Mood (y) Ahmadinejad, who implored Specter to stay a Republican and continue to pretend to be a Conservative, a turn-coat, an agent provocateur, a traitor. "The Ayatollah has no better friend than Arlen Specter," said My Mood.

Next on the Implore List was dictator Fidel Castro, who wrote an essay on the importance of the communist fifth column, bemoaning that, although Specter had been outed as a socialist agent some time ago, continuing to work under the conservative banner had positive merit for its propaganda value. Generalissimo Fidel said that propaganda factor would be lost as a democrat, and he was sad to see that end.

Another socio-pathic... er ... socialist leader, Hugo (hugs) Chavez welcomed Specter to the "revolution" but cautioned Specter about the new El Jefe in the White House. Chavez made reference to Specter's help in knocking out coal competition to Venezuelan oil, and said he sent Specter a giant "abrazo" (hug). "Don't turn your back on Hillary, Arlen," he smiled as he waved at the senatorial headliner.

Conservatives were asked to react to the defection. One prominent conservative asked, "Specter who?" Conservative senators repeatedly answered by chanting one after another: DLTDHYOTWO!

Another Conservative Congressman asked: "Is he taking Olympia Snow and Susan Collins with him? Not that I mind. Just askin'."

The undercurrent of conversation regarding the Specter defection took on a life of its own as democrats from the White House to the House and Senate and across the country's DNC strongholds bemoaned Specter's defection.

"Tell him to defect to some other party, dang it!" said Sec. of State Clinton. We already have enough democrats splitting the income tax pie! He needs to get in line at the end of the line."

Breaking News: This just in. "Specter has a Sex change!" Sources have revealed that Specter is considering a sex change operation in order to make his new party affiliation "a better fit." More as this story develops.

Petraeus Notes Differences Between Iraq, Afghanistan Strategies

WASHINGTON, April 22, 2009 – Predicting some “tough months ahead” as more U.S. troops deploy into Afghanistan, the commander of U.S. central Command said yesterday he believes success there is achievable, but not using the exact strategies that sparked a turnaround in Iraq.

“We do believe that we can achieve progress, but it’s going to get worse before it gets better,” Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass. Petraeus noted that violence initially spiked in Iraq during the early days of the troop surge there before dropping to the lowest numbers since the start of the war in 2003. Similarly, he said, coalition troops are likely to encounter strong opposition from extremists in Afghanistan. “When you go into an enemy’s sanctuaries, areas where he has been able to base and to plan and to build car bombs and all the rest of it, they will fight you for it,” he warned. “So there will be tough months ahead, without question.”

Petraeus was quick to note the “enormous difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.” Afghanistan, for example, lacks Iraq’s huge oil revenues and its “muscle memory” of strong central government institutions. These, as well as culture differences between the two countries, require a different approach to conducting counterinsurgency operations, he said. “You have to apply [them] in a way that is culturally appropriate for Afghanistan,” he said.

"For example, a key strategy shift that accompanied the troop surge in Iraq – in which U.S. troops lived within the Iraqi communities they helped to secure – won’t necessarily work in Afghanistan, Petraeus said. You don’t move into a village in Afghanistan the way that we were able to move into neighborhoods in Iraq,” he said. “You have to move on the edge of it, or just near it, but you still have to have a persistent security presence.”

Petraeus expressed confidence that the operations under way in Afghanistan ultimately will succeed, but he tempered expectations. “It will be very difficult, and you won’t see the dramatic turnaround that we have seen in Iraq,” he said. One big difference between the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there’s a nearly universal understanding of why the United States is fighting in Afghanistan, Petraeus said. “There is absolutely no debate about the fact that that is where the 9/11 attacks came from,” he said.

Similarly, there’s general agreement about the need to keep extremists from reclaiming Afghanistan as a safe haven to plan and launch future attacks, he said. The American people need to recognize that “this represents a vital interest to our country,” Petraeus said. While at Harvard, Petraeus paid tribute to hundreds of student veterans studying at the Kennedy School, Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Calling them the “new greatest generation,” he said, “I am simply here to say to each of you, ‘Thank you.’”

PIRACY, SECURITY, PEACE & PROSPERITY

PIRACY, SECURITY, PEACE, & PROSPERITY

Whether it is in Iraq, Afghanistan, the U.S. southern border, Timbuktu, or in the high seas, there are some basic rules of Life and Living that are sometimes too obvious to mention, and unfortunately those details do not get addressed. Please allow me to present a remedy.

You cannot have Life and Living; that is, "survival," and prosperity, without first establishing security. Indulge me for a moment for the analogy. Let's say you are out in the wilderness somewhere in a "frontier" area, you and your tribe.

Your family is one of a group of families brought together by some common purpose, even if that purpose is just that you are in the same location.

You proceed to hunt together, plant some crops, build some huts, occasionally have a community feast, and handle survival problems such as shelter, food, basic hygiene, etc.
One day the "outlaw barbarians" appear out of nowhere on horseback, to plunder, pillage, rape, and kill.

They make off with your daughters and wives and kill a number of your fellows.
After some wound licking the survivors put things back together as well as possible and with the passage of time, get the small tribe going again, at which point the violent outlaws on horseback appear again, only to plunder and pillage, etc., and leave the village in ruins once again.

Taking note of this, one of the survivors decides that enough is enough, and so he orders a meeting of the survivors, and leads them to train in defense and fighting. More members then set traps to capture or kill the intruders. They drill having raids, and what they will do with the intruders once they enter the village. They get proficient at it, all the while re-building and getting on with Life and Living.

The outlaws show up again one day to plunder and pillage, and although the villagers suffer some casualties, they nevertheless kill or capture the culprits. They justly lop off the heads of the surviving intruders and place them on spears at the entrance of the village to warn other potential plunderers and pillagers.

Then with captured weapons they augment their arsenal and vow never to allow anything like that to ever happen again, and they adopt a policy of "Security is necessary in order to have Peace in which to prosper."

And so they do.

While this may seem an oversimplification, there are plenty of examples in history, and indeed in current events that exemplify these principles. Security in Iraq is allowing the populace there to begin to achieve survival and prosperity, however, fragile that may be.

But the people there were not able to advance to the current status without first getting to the point that "enough was enough," routing the miscreants (terrorists), beefing up their military and police, and now advancing into enough Peace so that they can prosper. Granted, they had some help, no?

The same needs to occur in Afghanistan, by whatever measure or method necessary.
The same applies to piracy and the high seas.

In your own neighborhoods, should the police happen to ignore, turn a deaf ear to your security ( and this does happen in some neighborhoods) you have a responsibility to make the police establish the security necessary for the protection of you and yours, or develop the means necessary to make it happen, i.e. neighborhood watch, security volunteers.

Perhaps you know of communities that have done this.

Without question the sequence is this: Establish security. Create the Peace, so that you can then get on with the business of Life and Living. Maintain that order and enhance it so you can flourish and progress.

It may be harder and more complex than however simple it may sound, but this is what is necessary in order to prevail. It is true for an individual, a group, a tribe or a nation, or for the transport or commerce at sea.

The patty-caking with pirates at sea appears to have ended with the recent rescue of hostages and their captain by our Vanguards of Freedom, this time the U.S. Navy.

Additional acts of piracy and kidnappings indicate, however, that the message has not been sent loudly enough nor clearly enough, but a vital precedent has been set with the actions of our Navy.

The pirates (plunderers and pillagers) regardless of their age or deprived childhoods need to be neutralized by whatever means, else piracy will not cease.

Here at home, the piracy of socialism, must also meet the same fate, so that the plunderers and pillagers, those that seek to seize and confiscate wealth that you produce for you and your family. The pirates must be expelled from their elected office and replaced with representatives that will establish the security and peace in which you can prosper and progress.

This requires a shoulder to shoulder effort locally, regionally and nationally, with the additional aim of establishing and maintaining as policy that it never occur again that pirates achieve or acquire the office and means of pillaging and plundering the fruit of your endeavors.

Such a movement has taken root and the broad manifestation of tea parties across the country is testimonial to this fact.

And as a note, feel not insulted by the reactions to our grass root efforts, the "pirates'" attempts to ridicule and belittle the prairie fire that will soon consume them. Take heed of their reactions, but grant them only the value of dogs barking at the wheels and the exhaust of fire engines transsporting the fire-men and women speeding to extinguish a blazing conflagration.

Measure their objections as a validation of a job well done, and continue with the successful actons. Such actions have brave and noble precedent, as ordained by the preamble of our Constitution.

We, the People, must once and forever, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

The steps are these. From chaos you create and establish SECURITY. From that SECURITY you create and establish PEACE. From that PEACE you create and establish SURVIVAL. From that SURVIVAL you create and establish PROGRESS. All the while you enhance each step, acquiring affluence and expanding each.

SECURITY > PEACE > SURVIVAL > PROGRESS > AFFLUENCE > EXPANSION/GROWTH

VAN

THEY FEAR VETS BECAUSE OBAMANAZIS HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE...

I am elated and euphoric, and immensely honored to have been targetted by the socialist Janet Napolitano as a potential terrorist. We must be doing something right at Vanguard of Freedom.

If we had by chance been categorized by the Department of Homeland Security as a model for the current socialist regime, I would say then that we had something to reflect upon.

That said, I want to point out that Janet should keep her apologies and shove them up her Department of Homeland Security, and just resign. To even suggest remotely and to position our Defenders of Freedom in any way to resemble terrorists or recruits for terrorists is a testimonial to the true colors of the Obamanazis.

By positioning our patriots and heroes thusly, they position themselves as enemies of those who have served this country in the defense of Freedom. They would have you believe with their bumbling back-pedalling that it was a slip of the tongue or the pen.

On the contrary it is the truth exposed by the light shed on their own transgressions. It is something they firmly believe, yet are quick to hide in order to mask their true agenda and their true intentions.

Take heed, take note, because they have declared our Vanguards of Freedom suspect because they fear them.

They would not have such fear, if they had nothing to hide.

VAN

The Snakes Are Poisonous. Don't Be Distracted by their Rattle.

If you didn't see the Sixty Minutes Obama interview, congratulations.  It should not be watched if you have a weak stomach, especially since we are supposed to buy that a reporter and a network  are no longer in the tank for Obama because the reporter asks Obama if he is "punch drunk."

One of the components of any debate is defining the parameters of the debate.  It is not for the purpose of clarity, necessarily, but rather to dictate what should be debated, and by directing the debate thusly, win that debate, even though it appears one has lost the debate.  

Steve Kroft also asked Obama about the Gitmo issue.  In the Obama Vs. Cheney debate as defined by the issue of Gitmo and its detainees, the point "missed, mis-directed, or ignored," expecially by the Obamalibs, including pro-and-against debators, is the much larger issue, not of our treatment of prisoners or captives in the war on terror, but of the proverbial "rules of engagement."  And let me emphasize that it is a WAR, not a friendly basketball game, in which the players can pack up their ideologies and go home afterward.  

I point out the obvious, which the Obamadrones conveniently leave out for purposes of political expediency.  That obvious fact, which I have never heard discussed in the blogosphere or elsewhere, is this:  None of those who are prisoners at Gitmo were killed.  That should be obvious by the fact that they are still there.

I ask you this, therefore:  How many prisoners of war do the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda have? And if so, what might be their treatment of those prisoners? Do you need the videos of beheadings to further make my point?

The stupidity of ommitting that point by Obamalibs for the purpose of political expediency, is understandable, because if the Obamanazis were genuinely concerned with the treatment of political prisoners, they might want to ensure first of all, that "combatants" WERE taken prisoner in the first place.  

If we were in combat getting shot at, blown to bits, beheaded, and we were to take prisoners after fierce battle, only to have them coddled, pampered, and then released and delivered onto the streets of the very people they have sworn to destroy, then what judgement call might one  make on the battlefield when faced with the choice of taking a prisoner or winning the battle to the last man?

But that is a point that is not argued, for obvious reasons.  Because the issue is not at all how well or ill we treat prisoners.  Obamabots and other lefties know damn well, no other soldiers on the face of the earth are as well educated or intelligent as our own military.  Obamadroids desire only to "win" through doublespeak and seize political power to forward their Nationalist Socialist (Nazi) agenda.

And if you believe that a reporter is bold because he asks the President if he is "punch drunk," please understand, that to make THAT the issue, or to make the issue about a slight against the mentally retarded, or about bonuses to corporate executives, it is only to re-direct the debate to cloud the real issues.

I would beseech you to stay on point, see through the glazed eyes of the gestapo cowards as they spout their orwellian doublepuke, and continue with your mission's objective. We know the snakes are poisonous.  Don't be distracted by their rattle.

 

NCUA Conserves U.S. Central and Western Corporate Credit Unions

The National Credit Union Administration Board has placed U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, Lenexa, Kansas, and Western Corporate (WesCorp) Federal Credit Union, San Dimas, California, into conservatorship to stabilize the corporate credit union system and resolve balance sheet issues. These actions are the latest NCUA efforts to assist the corporate credit union network under the Corporate Stabilization Plan.  The actions by NCUA are a red flag in light of the ongoing financial crisis.

However, NCUA says that the two corporate credit unions were placed into conservatorship to protect retail credit union deposits and the interest of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF), as well as to remove any impediments to the Agency’s ability to take appropriate mitigating actions that may be necessary, and that service continues uninterrupted at both U.S. Central Corporate Federal Credit Union and WesCorp, and members are free to make deposits and access funds.

The Federal Credit Union Act authorizes the NCUA Board to appoint itself conservator when necessary to conserve the assets of a federally insured credit union, preserve member assets and protect the NCUSIF.

Corporate credit unions do not serve consumers. They are chartered to provide products and services to the credit union system. "...These products and services will continue uninterrupted and there is no direct impact by NCUA’s actions on the 90 million credit union members nationwide. Credit unions that serve consumers remain very strong, with net worth exceeding 10 percent of assets, healthy growth in assets, membership, and loan portfolios despite the difficult economy..." NCUA reported.

U.S. Central reportedly has approximately $34 billion in assets and 26 retail corporate credit union members. WesCorp has $23 billion in assets and approximately 1,100 retail credit union members. The member accounts of both credit unions are guaranteed under provisions of the previously announced NCUA Share Guarantee Program, through December 31, 2010. The Program extends NCUSIF coverage to all funds held by the two corporate credit unions.

NCUA sources report that following initial actions taken by the NCUA Board January 28, 2009, NCUA staff completed a detailed analysis and stress test of the mortgage and asset backed securities held by all corporate credit unions, including US Central and WesCorp. 

NCUA says that, specifically, this review determined that an unacceptably high concentration of risk resided only in the two conserved corporate credit unions, and that securities held by US Central and WesCorp deteriorated further since late January 2009, contributing to diminished liquidity and payment system capacities, as well as further loss of confidence by member credit unions and other stakeholders.

Furthermore, additional mortgage and asset backed security analysis and assessment of the two credit unions by NCUA staff enabled NCUA to refine NCUSIF’s required reserve for potential loss. The findings indicated an overall estimated reserve level, previously announced by NCUA, had increased from $4.7 to $5.9 billion.

NCUA said it is hosting a webcast Monday, March 23 at 2 p.m. to provide the credit union community with an update on the corporate credit union stabilization program.

The central short-term objective of NCUA’s Corporate Stabilization Program has been to increase liquidity in corporate credit unions. Since the NCUA Board first began taking stabilization actions, liquidity has demonstrated marked improvement. The reliance on external borrowing has declined from $11.8 billion to $2.1 billion.

NCUA believes that the actions to conserve the two corporates, in tandem with established plans to enhance liquidity and generally stabilize the corporate network, represent the most cost effective and prudent alternative available to the credit union industry. The final stage in the overall stabilization program involves the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiated by the NCUA Board in January. The credit union industry is expected to provide suggestions on possible future regulatory reforms to the corporate credit union network.

According to NCUA it will continue to take any and all steps necessary to preserve a well-functioning system of corporate credit unions and to protect the assets of natural person credit unions and their members during the ongoing broader financial market dislocation.

The National Credit Union Administration is the independent federal agency that regulates, charters and supervises federal credit unions. NCUA, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, also operates and manages the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF), insuring the deposits of over 89million account holders in all federal credit unions and the majority of state-chartered credit unions.

Iranian Man and His Company Charged in International Scheme to Supply Iran with Sensitive U.S. Technology

WASHINGTON – An Iranian citizen and his Tehran business have been charged with purchasing helicopter engines and advanced aerial cameras for fighter bombers from U.S. firms and illegally exporting them to Iran using companies in Malaysia, Ireland and the Netherlands. Among the alleged recipients of these U.S. goods was an Iranian military firm that has since been designated by the United States for being owned or controlled by entities involved in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program.

The charges against Hossein Ali Khoshnevisrad, 55, and his Iranian company, Ariasa, AG (Ariasa), were announced today by Matthew G. Olsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Jeffrey A Taylor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Kevin A. Delli-Colli, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, U.S. Department of Commerce; Joseph Persichini, Jr., Assistant Director in Charge, FBI Washington Field Office; Mark X. McGraw, Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; and Special Agent in Charge Edward Bradley of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service Northeast Field Office.

Khoshnevisrad was arrested on Saturday, March 14, after he arrived at San Francisco International Airport on a flight from abroad. He made his initial appearance earlier today in federal court in San Francisco.

A criminal complaint filed under seal in federal court in the District of Columbia in August 2008 and unsealed today, charges the defendants each with two counts of unlawfully exporting U.S. goods to Iran and two counts of conspiracy to unlawfully export U.S. goods to Iran in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iranian Transactions Regulations. If convicted, Khoshnevisrad faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on each of the first three counts of the complaint and a maximum sentence of five years in prison on the fourth count of the complaint.

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from January 2007 through December 2007, Khoshnevisrad and Ariasa caused and instructed a trading company in Ireland to purchase several model 250 turbo-shaft helicopter engines from Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indiana. The model 250 engine was originally designed for a U.S. Army light observation helicopter and has since been installed in numerous civil and military helicopters. In 2007, the Irish trading company purchased 17 of the model 250 helicopter engines from Rolls-Royce for $4.27 million, falsely stating that the helicopters would be used by the Irish trading company or by fake companies.

The affidavit alleges that these helicopter engines were then exported from the United States to a purported "book publisher" in Malaysia, at a Malaysian freight forwarding company address, and later shipped on to Iran. Among the recipients in Iran was the Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company, known by its Iranian acronym as HESA.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the Treasury Department designated several Iranian weapons of mass destruction proliferators and members of their support networks pursuant to Executive Order 13382. Among the entities designated was HESA, which the Treasury Department determined was controlled by Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics and has provided support to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In addition to the alleged illegal export of helicopter engines, the affidavit alleges that Khoshnevisrad and Ariasa also caused to be exported to Iran several aerial panorama cameras from the United States. These specific cameras were designed for the U.S. Air Force for use on bombers, fighters and surveillance aircraft, including the F-4E Phantom fighter bomber, which is currently used by the Iranian military.

According to the affidavit, in 2006, Khoshnevisrad instructed a Dutch aviation parts company to place an order for these cameras with a U.S. company located in Pennsylvania and to ship them to an address in Iran.

According to the affidavit, the Dutch company ordered the aerial panorama cameras from the Pennsylvania firm, falsely stating that the Netherlands would be the final destination for the cameras. In an email to the Dutch company, Khoshnevisrad provided the following instructions: "Regarding the end user as you know USA will not deliver to Iran in any case. You should give them an end user by yourself."

In August 2006, a representative of the Dutch company notified Khoshnevisrad that he had received the cameras from the United States and that the cameras would soon be shipped to Tehran aboard an Iran Air flight, according to the affidavit.

Despite these alleged transactions, neither Khoshnevisrad nor Ariasa has ever sought, obtained or possessed any authorization or license from the U.S. Department of Treasury to export any goods or technology to Iran, according to the affidavit.

This investigation was conducted by special agents from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry Security, Office of Export Enforcement; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. U.S. Customs and Border Protection provided assistance in the arrest.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Denise Cheung and Ann Petalas of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and Trial Attorneys Johnathan Poling and Ryan Fayhee of the Counterespionage Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. Local coordination is being provided by Assistant U.S. Attorney Candace Kelly of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.

WASHINGTON – An Iranian citizen and his Tehran business have been charged with purchasing helicopter engines and advanced aerial cameras for fighter bombers from U.S. firms and illegally exporting them to Iran using companies in Malaysia, Ireland and the Netherlands. Among the alleged recipients of these U.S. goods was an Iranian military firm that has since been designated by the United States for being owned or controlled by entities involved in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program.

The charges against Hossein Ali Khoshnevisrad, 55, and his Iranian company, Ariasa, AG (Ariasa), were announced today by Matthew G. Olsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Jeffrey A Taylor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Kevin A. Delli-Colli, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, U.S. Department of Commerce; Joseph Persichini, Jr., Assistant Director in Charge, FBI Washington Field Office; Mark X. McGraw, Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; and Special Agent in Charge Edward Bradley of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service Northeast Field Office.

Khoshnevisrad was arrested on Saturday, March 14, after he arrived at San Francisco International Airport on a flight from abroad. He made his initial appearance earlier today in federal court in San Francisco.

A criminal complaint filed under seal in federal court in the District of Columbia in August 2008 and unsealed today, charges the defendants each with two counts of unlawfully exporting U.S. goods to Iran and two counts of conspiracy to unlawfully export U.S. goods to Iran in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iranian Transactions Regulations. If convicted, Khoshnevisrad faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on each of the first three counts of the complaint and a maximum sentence of five years in prison on the fourth count of the complaint.

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from January 2007 through December 2007, Khoshnevisrad and Ariasa caused and instructed a trading company in Ireland to purchase several model 250 turbo-shaft helicopter engines from Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indiana. The model 250 engine was originally designed for a U.S. Army light observation helicopter and has since been installed in numerous civil and military helicopters. In 2007, the Irish trading company purchased 17 of the model 250 helicopter engines from Rolls-Royce for $4.27 million, falsely stating that the helicopters would be used by the Irish trading company or by fake companies.

The affidavit alleges that these helicopter engines were then exported from the United States to a purported "book publisher" in Malaysia, at a Malaysian freight forwarding company address, and later shipped on to Iran. Among the recipients in Iran was the Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company, known by its Iranian acronym as HESA.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the Treasury Department designated several Iranian weapons of mass destruction proliferators and members of their support networks pursuant to Executive Order 13382. Among the entities designated was HESA, which the Treasury Department determined was controlled by Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics and has provided support to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In addition to the alleged illegal export of helicopter engines, the affidavit alleges that Khoshnevisrad and Ariasa also caused to be exported to Iran several aerial panorama cameras from the United States. These specific cameras were designed for the U.S. Air Force for use on bombers, fighters and surveillance aircraft, including the F-4E Phantom fighter bomber, which is currently used by the Iranian military.

According to the affidavit, in 2006, Khoshnevisrad instructed a Dutch aviation parts company to place an order for these cameras with a U.S. company located in Pennsylvania and to ship them to an address in Iran.

According to the affidavit, the Dutch company ordered the aerial panorama cameras from the Pennsylvania firm, falsely stating that the Netherlands would be the final destination for the cameras. In an email to the Dutch company, Khoshnevisrad provided the following instructions: "Regarding the end user as you know USA will not deliver to Iran in any case. You should give them an end user by yourself."

In August 2006, a representative of the Dutch company notified Khoshnevisrad that he had received the cameras from the United States and that the cameras would soon be shipped to Tehran aboard an Iran Air flight, according to the affidavit.

Despite these alleged transactions, neither Khoshnevisrad nor Ariasa has ever sought, obtained or possessed any authorization or license from the U.S. Department of Treasury to export any goods or technology to Iran, according to the affidavit.

This investigation was conducted by special agents from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry Security, Office of Export Enforcement; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. U.S. Customs and Border Protection provided assistance in the arrest.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Denise Cheung and Ann Petalas of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and Trial Attorneys Johnathan Poling and Ryan Fayhee of the Counterespionage Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. Local coordination is being provided by Assistant U.S. Attorney Candace Kelly of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.