Click Button in Toolbar to Toggle Playlist.

We Win They Lose archive
Category : News: Military & Defense

Military suffers wave of ‘gay’ sex assaults

A recent military report on sexual assault in the military shocked many in Washington and around the nation, but a leading expert on military personnel revealed the prevalence of men assaulting other men is one of the major headlines in this study.

The extended analysis of the report first appeared in Monday’s edition of the the Washington Times.

The Defense Department survey of sexual assault in the military during fiscal 2012 estimated 26,000 assaults took place in the armed forces. Nearly 3,000 of them were formally reported. Just more than 6 percent of women reported being victims of assault and 1.2 percent of men said the same. Given the much larger number of men in the military, those numbers suggest 14,000 of the assaults in the Pentagon study happened to men.

Among the assaults formally reported, 88 percent of reports came from women and 12 percent from men. The numbers are getting dramatically worse.

“The number of reports of sexual assaults among military personnel have actually increased by 129 percent since 2004,” said Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, who pointed out the number of formal reports of sexual assault jumped from 1,275 to 2,949 in just eight years.

She told WND when factoring in civilians working for or around the military, the increase in that time is 98 percent.

Women are identified as the attacker in just two percent of all assaults, meaning most men who suffer assault are targeted by other men.

“So we’ve got a male-on-male problem here. The Department of Defense doesn’t want to comment on this. They know that the numbers are there. They say that they care, but all the attention is usually given to the female members of the military who are subjected to sexual assault,” Donnelly said.

Read More…

Israel astounded to see Nazi flag flying near the mosque of Beit Omar

Nazi flag

Hundreds of residents of Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem, were astounded Monday morning to see an oversized Nazi flag flying next to a mosque in the Arab town of Beit Omar.

The residents notified the IDF.

A resident, Uri Arnon, told the Tazpit News Agency: “I felt we were going back 75 years, losing our hold on the land. The Arabs no longer feel the need to hide their murderous tendencies, announcing out loud that they wish to annihilate us.”

An IDF spokesman said that the flag was hung on an electrical line, and that they were waiting to professionals to come and remove it.

h/t Arutz Sheva

Savages, Sexual Predators, and Their Defenders: How the Gov’t Views the Military

By A Marine Infantry Officer

Note: The opinions stated are my own and in no way represent the policy or opinion of the United States Marine Corps or the Armed Forces of the United States.

As our military moves into its second decade of fighting overseas, some in the media and on Capitol Hill have shamefully managed to both cover up an actual scandal over the death of four Americans in Benghazi and at the same time manufacture a scandal through their outrage over reports of sexual assault in the military. With barely contained vitriol, editorials, news articles, and political speeches have recently described these reports as an “epidemic.” Top military leaders have been berated and slandered for “failing to understand the problem” and for creating a culture of rape by getting “their buddies” off the hook as a matter of policy. American servicemen have even been outrageously and insultingly labeled more dangerous to their fellow women-in-arms than the enemy in combat.

Do sexual assaults occur in the uniformed services? Absolutely. Just like they do in every other sphere of the civilian world. Do they happen in higher proportion? Absolutely not. In fact, the numbers prove the opposite. Yet with no understanding of military life and culture, Washington politicians and journalists have condemned American servicemen as savages and sexual predators without digging into the facts.

The current controversy over sexual assaults began on May 5, 2013, after an Air Force lieutenant colonel, who happened to be in charge of the Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program, was charged with groping a woman in a parking lot while drunk. Two days later, the Pentagon released the results of a survey, which estimated that 26,000 service members had experienced “unwanted sexual contact,” a 30-percent increase over the 2010 estimate of 19,600.

Let’s start with the Air Force lt. colonel. First, his behavior, if proven true, was reprehensible and unbecoming of an officer in the U.S. Armed Forces. He should be court-martialed and discharged from the military immediately. However, his conduct did not occur in uniform or in the line of duty. He was drunk in a parking lot in Arlington, not on a base or deployed in a combat zone. So while horrible, it is no different from any other civilian sexual assault and unrelated to the statistics of sexual assault in the military. Yes, he was the leader of the Air Force’s SAPR office. Bill Clinton was the head of the Democratic Party, yet the sexual assault accusations against him were not reflective of the Democratic Party as a whole. Neither were Anthony Weiner’s or Eliot Spitzer’s sexually deviant behaviors.

With regard to the Pentagon’s recent sexual assault survey, there is and should be zero tolerance for sexual assaults in the military, and we must strive to eliminate the crime from the ranks. But before we condemn the military as a whole, let’s put the numbers in perspective. The survey estimates that 26,000 service members experienced “unwanted sexual contact.” Currently, there are 1.4 million active-duty service members in the United States Military, which means that the survey’s estimate of 26,000 equals roughly 2 percent of the United States Military. The survey further clarifies that of the 26,000 service members, 12,100 were women and 13,900 were men, which means that 6.1 percent of women (out of 200,000 female service members) and 1.2 percent of men (out of 1.2 million) on active duty experienced “unwanted sexual contact.” Compare this number to an estimate by the New York State Coalition against Sexual Assault that 1 out of every 4 women in college has been sexually assaulted. Where is the outrage and similar condemnation of universities?

Again, this is not meant to minimize the seriousness of the sexual assaults that do occur in the military or the justice that must be brought against perpetrators. The question is, why has the Washington establishment been so quick to condemn our servicemen despite its complete lack of understanding of life in the military or in a combat zone? More importantly, why has every senator, congressman and journalist who has commented on this topic ignored the evidence in the Pentagon’s study — which is clear as day — that shows that the rate of military sexual assaults is lower than in society generally? Is it through willful omission, or is it simply overlooked through selection bias?

Read More…

OBAMA NEGLIGENT, BENGHAZI HEARINGS REVEAL [What the Hearings Mean]

“Obama never tried, U.S. diplomats died.” Shocking lies by the Obama Administration over Benghazi were unmasked on May 8. Testimony about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya were heard by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA).

Some of what was expected did not materialize. Other bombshells turned out bigger. Clearly, we still do not know everything. Jaw-dropping topics are being discussed by other conservative journalists.

First, Gregory Hicks is the only person so far to speak in public about these events who was actually in Libya at the time. Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission in Tripoli, Libya – that is, Deputy Ambassador. As soon as Ambassador Chris Stevens died, Hicks became Acting Ambassador to Libya.

However, we still have not heard from anyone who was in Benghazi during these events. The 30-40 survivors are still in mysterious seclusion. Their eyewitness accounts will offer future revelations.

Second, Hicks dropped a bombshell: The USA never asked Libya for permission to fly through Libyan airspace to defend the Consulate in Benghazi. The Obama Administration never intended to come to the defense of Ambassador Stevens. Hicks – fluent in Arabic and familiar with Libya’s government – testified that Libya would have granted permission.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) keeps reminding us that no one knew how long the attack would last. In fact, it was 3 days later when the Embassy staff in Tripoli returned from evacuation at an annex. So at the time, U.S. F-16’s might still have been needed long past the first 7 hours. Hicks confirmed that he thought the situation was still dangerous for 3 days. Yet the U.S.A. never requested Libyan permission in case U.S. aircraft might be needed.

Read More…

Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

gty benghazi dm 130425 wblog Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

Read More…

 

Benghazi whistleblower hearing: A grand public service (From The Washington Post!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/files/2012/12/benghazi.jpg

We’ve heard the official line of Obama administration officials. Benghazi happened “a long time ago.” Benghazi has been thoroughly investigated—all the questions have been asked and answered, all the key officials have given their on-the-record testimony. The media have had their chances to ask their questions.

If all that is true, then why did the testimony of Gregory Hicks before a House committee today provide such a riveting and enlightening picture of the events of Sept. 11, 2012? Hicks was the State Department’s deputy chief of mission in Libya that night. He would become the chief before the night was over, as U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, as well as three other U.S. personnel, perished in the attacks.

As House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) noted in the hearing, the public hadn’t heard direct testimony from “a single person who was in Libya that night.” He instructed Hicks to give a rundown of what happened the night of Benghazi, and to take his time.

Hicks complied, to towering effect.

His narrative toggled between events in Benghazi, where the attacks began around 9:30 p.m. local time, and events in Tripoli, where Hicks was based: “As I remember September 11, 2012—it was a routine day at our embassy.” Routine, that is, until word came of the upheaval at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, at which point Hicks notified Stevens, in Benghazi, about the disturbing news.

Read More…

Cruz Seeks to Permanently Block Illegal Immigrants from All Welfare

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) aims to block any illegal immigrant from ever receiving any state, local, or federal welfare or public benefits with a series of amendments to the immigration reform bill currently under review in the U.S. Senate.

Cruz has filed five amendments to the bill. The one currently marked “Cruz 2” on the Senate Judiciary Committee website (the amendments have not yet received official numbers) has a stated purpose to “provide that aliens who have entered or remained present in the United States while not in lawful status shall not be eligible for means-tested benefits.”

The amendment would insert language into the bill that specifically says no illegal immigrant who broke the law to enter or stay in the country “shall be eligible for any Federal, State, or local government means-tested benefit, nor shall such alien be eligible for any benefit under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pub. L. 111-148), regardless of the alien’s legal status at the time of application for such benefit.”

Read More…

Sarah Palin: Tomorrow’s hearings on Benghazi will define the Obama presidency

Tomorrow’s hearings on Benghazi will define the Obama presidency if the truth is finally allowed to be told. I encourage everyone to tune in and hear the revelations that are long overdue. We’ll also see whether the president’s reliable lapdog cheerleaders in the media will continue to cover up for him and in so doing disgrace their profession. The following link is to something I posted way back on October 25th of last year asking questions that we should have had answers to long ago.

- Sarah Palin

 

There are many questions about the Benghazi attack that Americans deserve answers to. It’s been too long an “investigation” and too tragic for the families of lost loved ones for the White House and its friends in the media to ignore these questions:

- When and why did the YouTube trailer of the anti-Muhammad movie surface as any kind of credible reason for the attack?

- Where is the proof that that video was linked to Benghazi? It’s a weak excuse to claim some supposed rumored link between Benghazi and the attacks on our embassy in Cairo. Benghazi was very different. “Spontaneous” protestors don’t come armed with rocket-propelled grenades.

- What was the President’s response to the previous Benghazi embassy attacks in April and June? Why did officials ignore the requests for beefed up security to protect Americans after these attacks?

- Why did the Obama Administration assume a YouTube video was the reason for the Benghazi attack but not all the evidence to the contrary from the postings and emails that circulated that night in real time as the attack took place and Americans were being killed? And why weren’t those emails disclosed until this week?

- Why did the Obama administration spend our tax dollars to make and air television ads that ran in the Middle East apologizing for the YouTube video when they had so much credible evidence that it was nothing but a red herring?

- How much did President Obama know about this? In an interview he gave to CBS News on September 12, President Obama alluded to the fact that the Benghazi attack was not—as his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials were characterizing it—a “spontaneous” protest triggered by the Cairo embassy attack and the video. He told CBS News in that interview, “my suspicion is that there are folks involved in [the Benghazi attack] who were looking to target Americans from the start.” If he suspected this then why did he allow his administration to continue blaming the attack on the YouTube video? And why didn’t CBS News call him out on this when his comments in their interview with him, which they didn’t air until a month later, belie the administration’s YouTube narrative?

Someone in the media must demand answers. Until the media does its job to give us the Who What Where When and Why of this cover-up, there will be even less trust for this “cornerstone of our democracy” – if less trust and respect for the media is even possible today. We sincerely want to be able to trust the media. We need to be able to trust them. Their job is so important, and we appreciate all the good journalists in America. Our troops fight to protect all our freedoms including the freedom of the press.

- Sarah Palin

Rand Paul: Benghazi Failures Show Hillary Clinton Unfit for Office

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “dereliction of duty” regarding security at the U.S. diplomatic outpost at Benghazi, Libya, should preclude her from holding any office, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a speech to the Missouri Republican Party last week. The Missouri Republicans released a video of the entire speech Tuesday morning as part of a fundraising effort, the online political publication The Run reported.

Questions and accusations concerning security arrangements and the response by President Obama and State Department officials to the assault on the mission last fall that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans have come up repeatedly in the weeks and months since the September 11, 2012 attack. During a hearing by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Clinton said she had not read cables from Libya requesting additional security.

“Had I been president at the time” and known the secretary had not read those cables, “I would have relieved you of your post,” Paul told Clinton at the hearing. “I think it’s inexcusable.” In his Missouri speech last week, Paul said Clinton should be relieved of any future office as well.

“I think her dereliction of duty and her lack of leadership should preclude her from holding any office,” he said to enthusiastic applause from the partisan crowd. Clinton is considered the likely frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 if she seeks it, and Paul has indicated an interest in the Republican nomination. Neither has made any definitive statement about a White House bid.

The attack at Benghazi occurred hours after an anti-American demonstration on the grounds of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt, where the American flag was torn down and an al-Qaeda flag raised. That event was widely reported as a response to viewing on the Internet of an American-made anti-Muslim movie. The military-style assault in Benghazi was carried out by an estimated 125 to 150 militants with assault rifles, heavy machine guns mortars and rocket grenades. For several days after the attack, U.S. officials were describing it as a spontaneous demonstration that had been taken over by extremists.

Read More…

thumbMother Of Slain Benghazi Victim Rips Hillary Clinton: “I Blame Her”!

Mother Of Slain Benghazi Victim Rips Hillary Clinton: “I Blame Her”

Pat Smith’s son Sean Smith, a State Department information officer, was one of four Americans killed during the attack.

JAKE TAPPER: One woman still looking for answers is Pat Smith. Her son, State Department Information Officer Sean Smith was one of the four Americans killed. Pat, thanks so much for being here. I know this is not an easy time. How are you holding up?

PAT SMITH, MOTHER OF SEAN SMITH, KILLED IN BENGHAZI: Terrible. I cry every night. I don’t sleep at night. I need answers.

TAPPER: What do you want answers to? What do you not know?

SMITH: Why was there no security for him? When they were supposed to have security and the security that they did have was called back. It just — things do not add up and I’m just told lies.

Read More…

Report: Nearby US special forces blocked during Benghazi attack, told ‘you don’t have authority to go’

As the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya raged on for more than seven hours, a team of U.S. special forces in Tripoli was blocked from flying in to attempt a rescue, according to a top American diplomat who was in the region.

In previously secret testimony given by Gregory Hicks — the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — to congressional investigators last month, Hicks revealed two possible courses of action that could have saved American lives that night: allowing U.S. special forces to enter Benghazi and flying a fast-moving U.S. military aircraft over the scene of the attacks.

“So Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the [Special Operations Command South Africa] commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now,” Hicks told congressional investigators, “and so they missed the flight,” which would have gotten the team inserted prior to the second attack on the CIA annex.

Benghazi witness: US military response could have ‘scared’ off attackers, prevented mortar strike

The U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed, a top diplomatic official who was in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 assault told congressional investigators. The account, contained in a transcript obtained by Fox News, was given by Gregory Hicks during an interview last month with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, a whistle-blower who is preparing to testify Wednesday before that committee, was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — after Ambassador Chris Stevens

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com

Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack (but jailed and blamed youtube filmmaker anyway)

CBS NEWS: Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack “from the get-go.”

But the Administration still blamed filmmaker Nakoula, who is still in jail. They did this to keep the Benghazi debacle from exploding before the election. It worked. And filmmaker Nakoula is still in jail.

…..

… But here are some further lines of investigation. Some Obama-defenders will note that Nakoula was jailed for probation violations, of which he may have even been guilty…The question is, why, exactly, were they so eager to put Nakoula away?

The fast-tracking of Nakoula’s jailing was highly irregular. Among other things, I’d like to see the Congressional investigators get Nakoula’s prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale — and perhaps his boss, U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. — under oath about communications from the White House or the Justice Department regarding this case.

Because what it’s looking like is that Nakoula was targeted and jailed so as to provide a scapegoat/villain in a politically motivated cover story that the White House knew was false. If that’s the case, it’s extremely serious indeed, and in some ways more significant than whatever lapses and screwups took place in Benghazi. I’d also be interested in hearing from Nakoula’s attorney, Steven Seiden, about any threats made by the government to secure a plea deal.

If there’s an impeachable offense anywhere in the Benghazi affair — and at this point, I’m not saying there is — it’s more likely in what happened with Nakoula than in the problems abroad, which by all appearances are simple incompetence, rather than something culpable. Railroading someone in to jail to support a political story, on the other hand, is an abuse of power and a breach of trust.

Read More…

The Democrats have lost on sequestration

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: April 28, 2013

Elaine Thompson/AP

The Democrats have lost on sequestration.

That’s the simple reality of Friday’s vote to ease the pain for the Federal Aviation Administration. By assenting to it, Democrats have agreed to sequestration for the foreseeable future.

Recall the Democrats’ original theory of the case: Sequestration was supposed to be so threatening that Republicans would agree to a budget deal that included tax increases rather than permit it to happen. That theory was wrong. The follow-up theory was that the actual pain caused by sequestration would be so great that it would, in a matter of months, push the two sides to agree to a deal. Democrats just proved that theory wrong, too.

In effect, what Democrats said Friday was that in any case where the political pain caused by sequestration becomes unbearable, they will agree to cancel that particular piece of the bill while leaving the rest of the law untouched. The result is that sequestration is no longer particularly politically threatening, but it’s even more unbalanced: Cuts to programs used by the politically powerful will be addressed, but cuts to programs that affects the politically powerless will persist. It’s worth saying this clearly: The pain of sequestration will be concentrated on those who lack political power.

Read More…

White House: Clinton’s ‘Signature’ on Benghazi Docs Doesn’t Mean She Knew of Them!

The White House dismissed the signature of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on documents ignoring security concerns in Benghazi, calling it “protocol” for government official “signatures” to appear on documents they did not sign.

“It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday, using his fingers for quote marks when he said “signature.” He continued. “This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican.”

A report by five House committees released Tuesday found that Senior State Department officials, including Clinton, approved reductions in security at the facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report cites an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Clinton’s signature acknowledging a March 28, 2012, request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security, yet allowing further reductions.

Read more…

ArabicChinese (Traditional)DanishDutchEnglishFilipinoFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanNorwegianPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedish
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Twitter Feed
Welcome , today is Friday, May 24, 2013