Response to WikiLeaks articles

After reading Megan’s article and many others by my classmates like it, it seems that there are bunch of people out there who just don’t understand our rights.  The freedom of speech does not give one the right to shout fire in a theater.  By the same token, releasing classified documents, or even talking about the information contained in them is illegal.  Why is it illegal?  Because the definitions of classifications are about how much possible damage to the nation the information could cause if released.  Notice almost all classification levels cause damage to national security.

The WikiLeaks could have posted the troops lunch menu in Afghanistan, but if it was classified, there was a reason for it.  Knowing what the troops eat, how they acquire their food, and tracking down the food sources could tip the enemy (you know the guys who actually shoot at our troops?) to poison the rations killing off our troops.  But that’s ok, right?  I’m only talking about a lunch menu here.  It’s nothing of great of importance.  It’s not like I’m talking about some grand overall strategy of how we produce our weapons and where they are going.

Bradley Manning is a traitor and will be punished according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is much more strict than any civilian law.  Personally, I’d like to see a good ol’ hanging, but I’d accept a firing squad.  Julian Assange could care less about actually doing something for ‘the good of the public’ and is purely in it for the attention.  I know he’s succeeded at getting that attention, but I don’t think it’s the type he’s wanting as the U.S. is currently attempting to extradite him and put him to trial.  And for the entire WikiLeaks organization, have you seen the video the ‘underground movement’ put out where they say free speech on the internet is a basic human right?  How about the media coverage of the distributed denial of service attack that they performed against PayPal shortly after releasing their video.  Sounds rather hypocritical to me.

But I’m no expert, just a guy who served his country, who had a clearance and signed a contract to keep his mouth shut about sensitive matters that could damage the nation he served.

New PTSD Laws = Awesome

So there I was, hunkered down in a fox hole, looking over at my battle buddy, clutching to my rifle for strength.  Mortars and rockets rained upon us in an almost constant deluge.  Poking our heads up, we confirmed the obvious; we were behind the ‘protective wall’ surrounding our FOB and there was nothing we could do to negate the threat.  As another explosion rocked the compound, we heard the sound of safety; a couple of helicopters heading towards the threat to neutralize it.  After five minutes and thinking everything was clear, we left the protective bomb shelter and started to return to our previous duties when another rocket exploded.  Less than 20 feet away from me, a tent disappeared into a cloud of smoke and concussive sound.

Years later, I’ve found out that this type of experience is considered ‘near death’.  The after effects of it can include a variety of symptoms, some of which are managed through counseling and drugs.  The United States Department of Veterans Affairs offers assistance and compensation for the wounded warriors of our society.  From assistance training for a job to a monthly stipend based on your level of disability, the VA is a one stop resource for veterans to help get back to a ‘regular’ life.  It is the only government resource available of its type.  No other organization will give you cash for being wounded in the defense of our country.

For decades, doctors have known that combat troops have frequently undergone near death experiences which have changed them mentally.  The most of common condition is called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD.  In order to get a claim through the VA so you can receive support, financial or otherwise, it must first be validated that the condition exists.  If you are missing an arm, they want to see the stump.  A little messed up in the head?  Prove it.  The largest burden was on the actual veteran to prove that they experienced an event while in the service which has led to PTSD.  The time it took for the process was so long that most veterans gave up after the initial request is denied.  Veterans were being forced to prove that they underwent a traumatic experience in order to receive help.

July of this year, legislation was finally passed that makes the process easier and quicker.  Instead of having to prove that the story I wrote above was true, I just need to point to my deployment record to show that I was in Baghdad during several major attacks.  Unless solid evidence to the contrary is produced, a psychiatrist can evaluate the veteran and determine their qualification.  So now, instead of a lengthy process to submit a claim, have it evaluated, rejected, appealed, denied again… the veteran states their case, has it backed up by a doctor and service record and it on their way to receiving treatment.

While I’m typically against most things Obama has done or put in motion, this is definitely a clear case to back the Commander in Chief.

Gun Control?

In response to A Change To Come's Blog Post:

Controversial articles and topics get controversial replies and criticisms.  Your statement that the current gun laws in America are too lax certainly falls into both all the previously mentioned categories.  Being former military and presently civilian, it was actually no more difficult to get a weapon being in either category.  Being trained to use a variety of weapons, I can say with confidence that the weapon does not make itself dangerous.  The operator of the weapon is what makes it dangerous.\

A rifle of any caliber can be used to take any life as long as the shot is placed correctly.  More rounds fired yield better odds of one of them being deadly, but I have never seen a reason for a fully automatic weapon outside of the battlefield.  It certainly isn't required in hunting.. However, if you remove the distance needing to be covered by the weapon and carry the same power, you have a handgun.  Handguns are still tightly regulated and controlled.  Background checks, screenings, etc… are all required to purchase one.  And if you wish to legally carry one concealed, you take on infinitely greater responsibility in order to carry it as such not to mention the required training.  Don't believe me?  Take a concealed carry class just for the experience.  You'll have a whole new respect for the Castle Laws.

So basically, a rational person acting responsibly, within the law, is allowed by the bill of rights amending the constitution to bear arms; which leaves just people who aren’t rational or acting legally.  These individuals wield (with varying proficiency) any weapon they can get their hands on to commit these crimes.  As stated in various sources, yet nicely compiled here, the 10 year ban of assault weapons did not lower violent crimes.  So a trial period of 10 years yielded no substantial results that an outright ban of assault weapons lowered crime.

And Obama wants to make the ban permanent.  I’m hoping it’s voted down 8-90 again.  I say, stop the stupid people from doing stupid things like wielding an AK-47 on a school.  I'll close out this response with a link to my favorite comment written on the original article.  Though all of them I read seemed to be gems.

Obama on the Daily Show

After scanning many channels looking for something interesting to watch, I came across one of the shows that I used to find enjoyable, "The Daily Show".  Right after I mashed the button to change the channel, I heard, "And now, the President of the United States of America."  I quickly hit the recall button expecting something funny or interesting, like a video clip.  As the channel was changing back, it occurred to me that Jon Stewart would never do that on his show; I'd have to watch the Colbert Report for any good shots like that.  As it turns out though, it was actually the President.  He came on a Comedy Central TV show and was interviewed by Jon Stewart. 

I remember hearing something on the radio about how Jon grilled the President and was asking all sorts of questions which had him on the defensive, so I stayed tuned and watched.  It was obvious that Jon was slightly intimidated that the actual President was sitting before him and a couple of times his questions and comments weren't presented as he intended based on the President's answer.  Overall, with one major exception, it was a rather interesting piece. 

What's the exception?  The President's 'base layer' overall for the entire government is to remove filibusters.  So absolutely nothing is said about the majority of Congress actually not even being present for most of the debates.  C-Span is required to only film a close up of the person speaking at the time and almost never does a panorama of the chambers because it would depress what few viewers they have.  My other main objection to the removal of filibusters is probably more obvious.  If we can't get our way, and they can't get their way, and no one is wanting to compromise, then we should just have a law that let's us get our way. 

At least that's what the President wants.  So apparently, we shall not actually come up with new ideas or replace those stubborn people who are unyielding to reason and compromise, we'll just put something in place to prevent filibusters and make sure that everything is pushed through as fast as possible with no delays for debate.

Yeah, retarded.  Two more years till "We Can!" "Change!" the President out...

Lefties make this too easy...

After scanning countless articles looking for one that I could actually critique, I came upon this gem of a blog while performing covert recon against the opposition.  Apparently, Allison Kilkenny believes the repeated use of curse words is a rallying cry to her devoted followers and anyone who doesn't understand her gibberish or doesn't share her perspective is a "teabagger."  The majority of the article is countering a relatively neutral positioned article about Obama's recent attack against the Chamber of Commerce.  Obama and like minded hypocrites are claiming that the entire upcoming election is being financed by foriegn interests.

Obama doesn't provide a single shred of evidence to back it up and when questioned about the lack of evidence, his advisor, David Axelrod, replied, "Well, do you have any evidence that it's not"?  I suppose that means we should just toss that whole thing about 'Innocent until proven guilty' out the window.  It must be a trivial matter though, after all, it's the President who is backing these accusations.

While attempting to remain fairly neutral throughout my reading and research, I found myself repeatedly reading her article and noting that she was more upset over what Gail Collins and David Brooks were saying than she was upset over potentially false accusations with a touch libel for good measure.  And yet Gail and David said nothing more than they were dissappointed with how the President was handling the whole thing.  Her entire argument seems to be based off of the radical actions of extremists and not anything actually related to a general populace.

What little credibility Allison was keeping she just tossed out the window as I read the about the author segment where she claims to be a "radio host and political humorist".  Not only didn't I laugh, I found myself questioning the rational mental capacity of such a writer believes they make "shit*y news funny" by the use of an obscene amount of curse words and degoratory statements.

With such talented writers working their magic for the Democrats, it just makes me happy that I'm not a nut job.

2 Years in and already scared for his future

In a recent news article, Fox News reports that our Commander-in-Chief is working hard to help keep his Democratic fellows in office.  His recent outing to Des Moines, Iowa seems more like a firing squad that an a Q&A session.  The opening question threw Hope out the window or through the window with a ricochet off the sill.  While the article is clearly aimed at the Republican readers, it's hard to use any kind of clear logic to refute the statements and questions that were tossed out.  One of my Democrat friends claims, "There is no need to refute anything stated by Fox News because they don't ever report the truth."  Using this line of logic, there is no need to believe anything said by the opposite party.  This just happens to fall right in line with what most of the questioners had to be thinking when given such great lines as, Over the long term, "their future will be fine."  But it is rather hard to misread what he means by "We can't let this country fall backwards because the rest of us didn't care enough to fight."  However, I don't believe he meant it to be taken as, "All ye Republicans, get off thine derrieres and vote to save our country."  While the specific author of the article isn't cited, it does claim that the article is actually derived from Liberal news source, Associated Press.  It took 30 minutes of Googling to come up with which type of bias the AP would have but the majority of claims seem to be from overzealous right wingers claiming that the AP is filled nothing more than hate mongering Liberalists, and lies.  Mustn't forget the lies.  In my opinion, it seems like they did us all a favor with this article showcasing the President's fear for his job and those like minded socialists that need a quick kick out the door.

Read the whole news article HERE.

Watch for falling Guams!

Hank Johnson, Georgia Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, is obviously very concerned with the Marine presence in Guam.  His main concern is that the island will tip over and fall into the ocean killing thousands.  Global warming doesn't appear to help the matter.  Yes, global warming and over population are going to decimate the entire island of Guam.  But what I really can't understand is, how big is Guam really?  20, 7, 24 miles across?  Apparently, the only people who know don't share with Congressmen...