AWRM
Active Threads | Active Posts | Unanswered Today | Since Yesterday | This Week
UPN: United Patriot Network
10/03/2024 09:21 PM
In Lebanon, two US- funded armies are shooting at each other. Yes, this is madness.

Quote
It's a story that has happened before in the Middle East: an army with American weapons shot at another army with American weapons. Sometimes it's an intentional ploy; during the war between Iran and Iraq, the Reagan administration armed both sides, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal. And sometimes it's an unintended consequence, like the Syrian rebel infighting that led to the infamous headline, "In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA."

The fighting between the U.S.-funded army of Israel and the U.S.-funded army of Lebanon seems to be another such consequence of U.S. policy. When the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and Israel began fighting last year, the Lebanese government tried its best to stay out of the fray. It reportedly even pulled troops away from the border when Israel announced a ground invasion and ordered Lebanese citizens to evacuate north of the Awali River. But on Thursday, the Lebanese army announced that it had, in fact, been sucked into the conflict.

"One of the soldiers was martyred as a result of the Israeli enemy targeting an army center in the area of Bint Jbeil South, and the center's personnel have responded to the source of fire," the army stated on social media. An official in Lebanon told Agence France-Presse that it was the first time the Lebanese army fired on Israeli forces throughout the war.

Two hours before, the Lebanese army had announced that one of its soldiers was killed by Israeli fire while "carrying out an evacuation and rescue mission alongside the Lebanese Red Cross in the town of Taybeh-Marjayoun," down the road from Odaisseh, a town that several Israeli troops were killed trying to enter on Wednesday morning. The Red Cross said that four of its paramedics were injured, and the Israeli army said that it would be investigating the incident.

American taxpayers have helped arm and train both the armies that are now apparently shooting at each other—and the U.S. funding was designed to prevent exactly this outcome. Israel received $124 billion in U.S. aid from 1949 to 2023, and at least $6.5 billion over the past year. The United States has also provided around $3 billion in military aid to Lebanon since 2006, including around $2 billion in weapons. Last year, the Biden administration began paying the salaries of Lebanese soldiers and police directly.

Congress sends Lebanon this aid on the condition that it will be used to "professionalize the [Lebanese Armed Forces] to mitigate internal and external threats from non-state actors, including Hizballah [sic]" and "implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701," which was passed after the past Israeli-Lebanese war in 2006, and calls on Hezbollah to disarm.

However, Hezbollah has refused to lay down its weapons, claiming that Israel still occupies Lebanese land in the disputed Shebaa Farms. After Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel last year, Hezbollah began firing on the Shebaa Farms, which escalated to Israel and Hezbollah bombarding each other's border cities, forcing tens of thousands of people on both sides of the border to flee. Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.N. that he would fight for "total victory" in order to "return our citizens to their home safely."

Biden administration officials have encouraged Israel's strategy of "de-escalation through escalation," and are privately pitching the war as an opportunity to "reshape the Middle East for the better for years to come," according to Politico.

But President Joe Biden is publicly calling for the war to end. "We should have a ceasefire now," he told reporters on Monday. Asked whether he is comfortable with Israel launching a ground invasion of Lebanon, the president said that he is "comfortable with them stopping." If only he had some leverage over the two sides.


Onward and upward,
airforce
43 2,573 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/30/2024 10:38 PM
They want your back taxes, and will fine you for late payment. You can't make this stuff up.

Quote
Many Americans who return home after being illegally detained overseas arrive to find they've been billed thousands of dollars by the IRS—including late fees for unpaid taxes.

That's the bizarre situation in which hostages Evan Gerskovich, Paul Whelan, and Vladimir Kara-Murza found themselves after they were released from detention in Russia last month. All three men say they faced a battery of surprise financial issues after returning home, including tax charges and hits to the credit stemming from bills they were unable to pay while behind bars.

"I got one of those bills from the IRS saying, you owe this much on this year, you owe this much on this year because of failure to pay on time—here's the interest that's accrued," Washington Post reporter and former hostage Jason Rezaian told NPR. He faced more than $6,000 in fees for unpaid taxes after his release, following 544 days of detention in Iran. "This is an oversight that nobody really thought about."

And they're not alone. Right now, between 40 and 60 American nationals are being illegally detained by other nations, according to NPR. Many of these Americans will return home to face startling financial penalties stemming from their unjust imprisonment.

The IRS, for its own part, claims that it doesn't have the legal authority to remove tax fees for returning hostages. However, that could change. Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) introduced the Stop Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, an aptly named bill that would require the IRS to exempt hostages from tax liability during the period of their detainment. The bill would also force the IRS to allow hostages and their spouses to apply to have their tax-related fines removed.

If Coons' bill passes, it would solve a small but frustrating problem in our robotic tax system. It's a no-brainer that someone illegally detained abroad can't pay their Netflix subscription on time—much less their taxes. In addition to dealing with the horrors of being held hostage in a foreign country and dealing with the rocky transition back to normal life, former detainees shouldn't also get slapped with thousands of dollars of fines for taxes they never could have paid in the first place.


Onward and upward,
airforce
0 7 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/30/2024 06:52 PM
We're nearing the end of the "cheap burger." Among other things, the U.S. cattle herd is at a record low this year.

Quote
Italians have mozzarella, the French enjoy baguettes, Nigerians have jollof rice, and Americans have burgers and fries—and we like them cheap. Ever since the McDonald brothers first launched their vision of fast burgers at 15 cents a pop in 1948, inexpensive beef has become an American touchstone, practically a birthright along with voting and the high school prom.

These days, that’s an entitlement drifting out of reach for many Americans. In the second quarter of 2024, the average price of a fast-food restaurant burger was $8.41, up 16% from five years ago, according to food consultant Technomic’s Ignite Menu data. Even at McDonald’s, the average price of a Big Mac (no fries, no drink, just the sandwich) in June was $5.29, a 21% increase from 2019. Burgers have gotten expensive enough that low-income consumers have been coming in less frequently, driving the chain’s first sales drop in four years, it said in its last quarter earnings.

The Golden Arches has responded with deals—a value meal here, a buy-one-get-one there—and it seems to be getting traction. Other fast-food chains have followed, too. But to think the value wars are a sign that cheap burgers are coming for all is to misread what’s happening not to fast food, but to beef. The average retail price per pound for ground beef in US cities in August was $5.58 per pound, a record high reflecting the US cattle herd’s historically low numbers. The herd has been shrinking since its most recent peak in 2019, hitting a 73-year low in January.

Most of us remember 2020 for the pandemic, but ranchers will also remember it for the severe drought. When pasture for herds to graze grows harder to come by, ranchers send animals to slaughter without replacing them, shrinking herds and sending prices up. This year’s rainfall has been better, but parts of the country are still not out of the woods. Even as the costs of feed for cattle has declined, higher interest rates and operating expenses have meant that it’s still too pricey for most ranchers to get back to growing their herds, or “rebuilding” them, in industry parlance. So the number of cattle continues to fall, and the price of beef will continue to rise.

The size of the cattle herd—and beef prices—is cyclical, dependent on both market conditions and weather. First, prices have to get high enough for a producer to decide to increase his herd. Then there’s the cow’s biology, which makes for an achingly long cycle: The producer has to hold back some heifers (or breeding cows) rather than send them to slaughter. Once impregnated, cows don’t give birth for another nine months. The calves need at least a few months with their mothers and are then fed on the farm. Finally they’re sold to a feedlot, where they could remain for up to 300 days, depending on how quickly they gain weight. By the time the cow is slaughtered, it’s 30 to 42 months old. (Chickens, by contrast, are slaughtered before they reach 2 months.) Because of this lengthy process, it takes about five years for the cycle to go from its low point to its high point.

Despite the record high prices, nobody is certain the rebuild is coming. Signals from the major meat packers, which buy the cows at the feedlot stage, are mixed: Meat giant Tyson Foods said in its August earnings call that “data doesn’t support” a herd rebuilt yet, but less than two weeks later, rival beef giant JBS SA said in its earnings call that it was seeing some positive signs, with the number of young, female cows sent to slaughter down about 15%, meaning more are being held back to reproduce. Even so, JBS’s prediction for that herd-size rebound—for new cows to be ready for slaughter—isn’t until 2026. All that translates into beef prices rising higher before they start to fall, says Derrell Peel, a professor of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University....


Read the whole thing at the link.

Onward and upward,
airforce
11 635 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/26/2024 06:30 PM
What if Eric Adams resighns - or is removed from office - and Jumaane Williams becomes acting mayor?

Quote
New Yorkers' worst fears could soon be realized as the already teetering Big Apple would be run by an ultra progressive Black Lives Matter activist if Eric Adams is ousted following his federal indictment.

NYC Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, 48, who has protested against the police, is next in line for the mayor's office - and exactly the kind of Democrat that far-left progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been dreaming of to run the nation's biggest metropolis.

He would replace Adams temporarily, until there is a special election 80 days after the change of power, sparking fears among New Yorkers that things could go from bad to worse in the city.

'A wounded Eric Adams, a weakened Eric Adams remaining in office, is better than the socialist Jumaane Williams,' former mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa told DailyMail.com. 'That will open up the floodgates to socialism, and we will become Chicago.'

Adams, a moderate Democrat and former cop, has been the target of progressives like AOC, who oppose his pro-NYPD views and statements denouncing the Biden administration's migrant policies.

Rep Ocasio-Cortez, who has repeatedly endorsed Williams, has been the leading Democrat voice against Adams, demanding his resignation in an essay for The New York Times published just hours before the mayor was indicted.

'I do not see how Mayor Adams can continue governing New York City,' AOC wrote Wednesday on X on Wednesday.

'The flood of resignations and vacancies are threatening gov function. Nonstop investigations will make it impossible to recruit and retain a qualified administration.

'For the good of the city, he should resign.'

Social media users have already started expressing fear about what a mayor Williams would mean for NYC.

'Jumaane D. Williams makes AOC look like Joe Manchin. Big defund the police/bail reform guy,' Joe Colangelo said on X.

'To say this would be the final nail in the coffin for NYC is an understatement. JW is basically a villain from Batman,' another X user added.

Lisa Cappiello simply wrote: 'Lord help us.'

During 15 years in public service, Williams has stoked anti-police sentiment and pushed for criminal reform, including to end solitary confinement in city prisons. He is also a prominent pro-Palestine activist.

The failed gubernatorial candidate is a firm proponent of slashing the NYPD’s budget but lives in a US military base in Brooklyn that offers 24-hour security.

Williams was a leader of the 2020 BLM protests in NYC. In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, he led marches to Brooklyn Borough Hall to demand NYPD budget cuts.

He also threatened to refuse to sign a warrant authorizing the collection of real estate taxes, which underpin the city’s budget.

Williams said he would not sign that warrant unless the city eliminated the next class of police officers.

‘This guy hates the cops, hates America. Wears a Keffiyeh,’ Sliwa told DailyMail.com. ‘The police will no longer be able to function….

Sliwa added that even in a temporary position, Williams’ mayorship could have lasting effects for NYC and it will spark an exodus from the city.

‘[City Council] will pass so much legislation that he will sign and will never be able to be rescinded,’ Sliwa added. ‘New York City will become the socialist capital of the world.’

Responding to AOC's tweet demanding Adam's resignation, X user Ralph Napolitano wrote: 'She wants to step in and be mayor. He’s an extreme progressive socialists who hates the cops. NYC will be worse than it is now. We can’t let happen.'

Williams, his wife and children live on the Fort Hamilton base in the Bay Ridge area of Brooklyn.

The family, who have lived there for two years, rent a corner townhouse on the base with a backyard and water views of the Verrazano Narrows for about $4,000 a month.

To enter the base, vehicles and passengers are subject to identity checks and surveillance.

The base remains one of the most protected corners of Brooklyn.

Adams was indicted by a federal grand jury on federal criminal charges - an extraordinary culmination to weeks of searches, subpoenas and resignations of top officials that have thrust the city’s government into crisis.

The indictment detailing the charges against Adams was expected to be unsealed Thursday.

In a speech recorded at his official residence, Adams said he would remain in office, describing any charges he may face as “entirely false, based on lies.”

'I always knew that if I stood my ground for all of you, that I would be a target — and a target I became,' Adams said. 'I will fight these injustices with every ounce of my strength and my spirit.'

Federal investigators had seized Adams’ electronic devices nearly a year ago as part of an investigation focused, at least partly, on campaign contributions and Adams’ interactions with the Turkish government. Because the charges were sealed, it was unknown whether they dealt with those same matters.

It marks a stunning turn for Adams, a former police captain who won election nearly three years ago to become the city’s second Black mayor on a campaign that stressed his working class roots and commitment to public safety. But as Adams has made reducing crime a cornerstone of his administration, he has faced growing legal peril, with multiple federal investigations honing in on his top aides and his own campaign.

In the last two weeks alone, the leaders he appointed to oversee the country’s largest police force and largest schools system have announced their resignations.


If you thought New York City was a lawless dystopian hellhole before...

Onward and upward,
airforce
1 20 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/25/2024 07:28 PM
The Ashli Babbitt wrongful death lawsuit is going forward. The trial is now scheduled to begin July 20, 2026.

Quote
A federal judge scheduled a trial date for a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of Jan. 6 protester Ashli Babbitt, who died after being shot by U.S. Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd.

The watchdog group Judicial Watch, which is helping in the lawsuit filed by Babbitt’s husband, Aaron, revealed that Judge Ana C. Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia scheduled a trial date of July 20, 2026, for the $30 million wrongful death suit.

Following a Friday hearing on the case, Judicial Watch also said Reyes is considering a request to move the case to California, where Ashli Babbitt’s family lives.

“Ashli Babbitt’s family is relieved Ashli’s case is moving forward to trial on all fronts,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “They seek justice and accountability for Ashli’s violent and lawless death at the hands of U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Byrd.”

The case is an outgrowth of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of then-President Donald Trump threatened to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote making Joe Biden president.

Ashli Babbitt was part of a crowd of protesters attempting to enter the Speaker’s Lobby behind the House chamber. As she was pushed through the window in a doorway, Byrd opened fire and killed her.

The Judicial Watch complaint said Ashli Babbitt was unarmed and held her hands up as she entered the hallway, but that didn’t stop the shooting.

“Lt. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashli before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as female. Ashli was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty, and in plain view of Lt. Byrd and other officers in the lobby,” the lawsuit noted.

“Lt. Byrd, who was not in uniform, did not identify himself as a police officer or otherwise make his presence known to Ashli. Lt. Byrd did not give Ashli any warnings or commands before shooting her dead,” the complaint added.

Byrd’s actions were investigated by the government, and he was not punished.


Some 2,000 people have been arrested and charged in the riots in a sweeping dragnet by the FBI. In many of those cases, charges are now being dropped following a Supreme Court decision that the Biden administration overreached in using an obstruction law to jail Trump’s supporters.

Trump has denied encouraging his supporters to block the presidential vote in Congress, and he has promised to pardon those charged in nonviolent cases.

The suit was originally filed in California where Ashli Babbitt, 35, owned and operated a pool business with her husband. She traveled alone from San Diego to Washington, D.C., to attend the “Women for America First” rally at the Ellipse, which featured Trump.

Judicial Watch has been a leader in the legal effort to challenge the government’s story of the Jan. 6 riots. [url=https://www.judicialwatch.org/jw-v-dc-ashli-babbitt-november-2021-audio-001710/It recently revealed a video of Ashli Babbitt’s shooting[/url] that appears to back up the claims in the lawsuit.


Onward and upward,
airforce
4 134 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/24/2024 03:07 AM
Well the unions still haven't come to an agreement. Strike is next week. Be ready
1 62 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/22/2024 03:58 PM
The Silent Insurrection: General Milley’s Hand On January 6

Authored by Haley McLean via Deaclassified with Julie Kelly,

In the days and weeks leading up to January 6, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, was moving in lockstep with the political anxieties of top Democratic leaders.

These Democrats grew anxious as over 140 House Republicans planned to contest the election results during the electoral college certification that day. Milley was then deeply engaged with a circle of confidants including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among others—all of whom shared a unified disdain for President Donald Trump.

At a House Oversight Committee hearing in April addressing the 3-hour and 19-minute delay in mobilizing the D.C. National Guard on January 6, Colonel Earl Matthews, one of four Department of Defense witnesses, testified about an “irrational” fear among a “clique” of senior military officers concerning the potential misuse of the National Guard by the president. He indicated that these concerns were influenced behind the scenes by Milley, who often made disparaging remarks about the president and regularly referred to his fear of a so-called potential “Reichstag moment.”

In April 2024, Col. Earl Matthews, general counsel for DC National Guard, gave a detailed account as to how Army Sec Ryan McCarthy was unreachable the afternoon of Jan 6 for final authorization to deploy guard.

Matthews also discussed Gen. Milley’s suspicious conduct before J6 pic.twitter.com/tMAW6BjMI9

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) September 20, 2024

Meanwhile, Milley has insisted he maintained a posture of strict neutrality, vocally distancing his leadership of the military from the political turmoil surrounding the 2020 presidential election. “My job is to stay clean by ensuring that the uniformed military remains out of domestic politics,” Milley stated during his testimony before the January 6 Select Committee. “The United States military has no role in domestic politics, period, full stop.”

Nevertheless, accounts of Milley’s approach to the unfolding situation during the late days of the Trump administration, as detailed in Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker’s I Alone Can Fix It and Susan Glasser and Peter Baker’s August 2022 report in The New Yorker, present a picture of Milley that is much different from the disinterested persona he has disingenuously cultivated.

Some excerpts follow:

Considering resigning in the summer of 2020 during the height of the George Floyd riots, Milley ultimately decided against it. “Fuck that shit,” he told his staff, “I’ll just fight him.” Despite assurances to confidants that he would never openly defy the president—a move he considered illegal—he was “determined to plant flags.” Milley envisioned a scenario involving either a declaration of martial law or a presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act with “Trumpian Brown Shirts fomenting violence.”
Embodying a self-styled narrative of heroic defiance, Milley was prepared to face severe consequences to counter what he perceived as a grave threat. “If they want to court-martial me or put me in prison, have at it,” Milley told his staff, “but I will fight from the inside.”
Milley saw himself as “tasked” with safeguarding “against Trump and his people” from potentially misusing the military, something he confided in a “trusted confidant” to ensure he remained true to this plan. “I have four tasks from now until the twentieth of January,” he affirmed, “and I’m going to accomplish my mission.”

Milley’s Cohort of Confidants

I Alone Can Fix It highlights how Milley, as the joint session approached and more than 140 House Republicans were pledged to contest the election results, shared his anxiety with “senior leaders” in Congress who sought his “comfort” amid fears of “attempted coups.” The New Yorker’s August 2022 report further reveals Milley’s communications with key Democrats, specifically Pelosi and Schumer.

Additionally, the New Yorker report describes Milley’s continued outreach to “Democrats close to Biden,” which included “regular” interactions with Susan Rice, former Obama national security advisor. Known for her role in helping to orchestrate the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, Rice’s expertise in activities aimed at undermining the former president raises this question: What was it about her that made Milley want to seek her guidance in the days leading up to January 6?

The report also references Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense during both the Obama and Bush administrations, as another key figure in Milley’s circle of confidants. Gates reportedly advised Milley to remain in the Pentagon as long as possible, citing President Trump’s “increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior.” I Alone Can Fix It also depicts Gates as a mentor to Milley, urging him not to resign during the final months of the Trump administration. He’s quoted advising Milley, “Don’t quit. Steel your back. It’s not going to be easy, but you’re the right guy in the right place and at the right time.”
Liz Cheney and Milley’s “Nightmare Scenarios”

During Trump’s final months in office, the New Yorker report notes that Milley had two “nightmare scenarios” running through his mind: One was that Trump might spark an external crisis, such as a war with Iran, to divert attention or to create a pretext for a power grab at home, and the other was that Trump would manufacture a domestic crisis to justify ordering the military into the streets to prevent the transfer of power.

On December 26, 2020, the two “nightmare scenarios” then preoccupying Milley transitioned from his personal concerns to the public domain in a column by Washington Post reporter David Ignatius—a journalist with close ties to both (you guessed it) the Obama and Bush administrations.

Ignatius’s extensive connections within these administrations are detailed in a March 2012 Politico report, which highlights his significant access to senior White House and Pentagon officials, including being tapped by the Obama White House for exclusive access to the Bin Laden documents in 2012. Additionally, former Vice President Dick Cheney mentioned Ignatius in his 2011 memoir, In My Time, co-authored with his daughter, former House Republican Liz Cheney. In the memoir, Cheney recounts concerns about leaks to the press during the Bush administration and reveals that a source had spoken to Ignatius at the president’s instruction.

Coincidentally, in her 2023 memoir, Oath and Honor, Liz Cheney also references Ignatius’s December 26, 2020, Washington Post column that unveiled the “nightmare scenarios” Milley had envisioned. That evening, she notes, the column “caught my attention” as Ignatius, “a longtime journalist well-sourced at the Pentagon, reported that senior government officials feared Trump was ‘threatening to overstep the constitutional limits of his power.’” Cheney cites her discovery of Milley’s concerns in this article as the catalyst to her mobilization of all 10 living former Secretaries of Defense to sign a letter warning the current Defense Department leadership and President Trump to stay within bounds. Additionally, she reveals that when Robert Gates, a mentor to Milley, was approached to join this effort, he responded, “If Cheney’s on, I’m on.”

I Alone Can Fix It reports that on the evening of January 2, 2021, Milley was “tipped off” by a “former defense secretary” about an impending Washington Post opinion piece authored by those same 10 living former defense secretaries Liz Cheney mobilized for the purpose on the basis of Milley’s “nightmare scenario” fears. The book also notes that on January 7, 2021—the day after the chaotic events of January 6—Cheney called Milley to check in. “How are you doing?” he asked her. “That fucking guy Jim Jordan. That son of a bitch,” Cheney responded. What more might we learn about Milley’s interactions with Cheney in the days leading up to January 6? Surely, this was not their first conversation about the events that would ultimately unfold that day.
The January 6 Committee’s “Investigation”

In the months following January 6, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who previously had received assurances from Milley that he would not use the military for domestic purposes politically favorable to Trump, established the Select Committee on January 6 to “investigate” the day’s events. Remarkably, Liz Cheney was appointed vice chair of the panel, a position typically reserved for a member of the majority party.

According to a November 2022 Washington Post report, Cheney exerted a “remarkable level” of control over much of the committee’s work. Staffers, frustrated with Cheney’s insistence on centering the final report on President Trump, expressed concerns that important findings unrelated to Trump would be withheld from the public.

Consistent with Cheney’s objectives for the committee’s investigation, General Milley offered his own criticisms of President Trump. “You know, you’re the Commander-in-Chief,” he told the committee, “you’ve got an assault going on at the Capitol of the United States of America, and there’s nothing? No call? Nothing? Zero?”
Milley and McCarthy’s January 5 Memo

During his interview with the January 6 Committee, Milley explained that in preparation for January 6, the role of the D.C. National Guard was defined in a memorandum he described as “very strict on the use of the military.” Milley detailed how the memorandum prohibited the use of any riot control agents, stating, “We’re not doing it … and not only not doing it, you’re not going to have it. You’re not going to have the opportunity to use it.” Additionally, he mentioned that while such measures might be authorized under different circumstances on another day, they were explicitly forbidden “at that time, on this day.”

This directive was ultimately issued by Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to Major General William Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, on January 5, 2021. Milley disclosed to the committee that he was actively involved in advising McCarthy on the memorandum, “line by line going through this, lining it out, editing, and stuff like that, resulting in this memo.”

The January 5 memo, carefully crafted by Milley and McCarthy, authorized 340 D.C. National Guard personnel to assist law enforcement with traffic control points and metro station support, and stationed 40 personnel at Joint Base Andrews to serve as the Guard’s Quick Reaction Force (QRF) in case of an emergency. However, this memo restricted General Walker from employing the QRF without explicit personal approval from Army Secretary McCarthy—a condition previously not imposed.

In March 2021, General Walker testified before the Senate Rules and Homeland Security Committee, stating that he had the authority to employ the Guard’s QRF before January 6 and described the new restrictions as “unusual.”

He also testified to the January 6 Committee about his inability to reach Secretary McCarthy on January 6, revealing that it was the first time he found the phone number he had for McCarthy to be out of service. Additionally, General Walker noted that Colonel Earl Matthews, who had McCarthy’s private number due to their social acquaintance, was also unable to reach him.

This breakdown in communication occurred just one day after McCarthy had issued the memorandum requiring General Walker to obtain explicit approval from him for employing the Guard’s QRF. What could possibly account for McCarthy’s unavailability during those critical hours? Did McCarthy somehow overlook the crucial role he had defined for himself with the new restrictions imposed just a day earlier?
Where’s McCarthy?

On January 6, Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller approved the deployment of the D.C. National Guard by 3:04 p.m. The protocol then required Army Secretary McCarthy to convey this authorization to General Walker to enable the deployment of the D.C. National Guard. However, McCarthy never conveyed this authorization, resulting in the more than 3 hour delay.

The January 6 Committee’s final report states that after Defense Secretary Miller authorized the deployment at 3:04 p.m., Secretary McCarthy called General Walker, instructing him to “mobilize the entire Guard.” However, General Walker “categorically denies” receiving such a call. “Here’s the bottom line,” he said, “The Secretary was unavailable to me, and he never called me.”

It appears, however, that McCarthy changed his story after initially telling the committee that he had called General Walker. The committee’s final report addresses this inconsistency by detailing McCarthy’s actions and whereabouts on January 6 to explain the delay. It explains that starting around 3:00 p.m. on January 6—shortly after Defense Secretary Miller approved the Guard’s deployment at 3:04 p.m.—“25 minutes of Army Secretary McCarthy’s time was spent reassuring members of Congress that the Guard was indeed coming,” even though he had not yet conveyed the order to General Walker. The report continues, stating that by 3:45 p.m., McCarthy had completed his calls—none of which were to General Walker—and after picking up some items from his office, he headed to the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) headquarters to draft a concept of operations, a process that took an additional 20 minutes.

However, when Brigadier General Aaron Dean, another Defense Department witness who testified before the House Oversight Committee, was asked whether he ever saw the plan McCarthy claims to have prepared, he responded, “Not only did I not see the plan, but he was also at the wrong agency.” He elaborated that the lead federal agency for this particular event was the United States Capitol Police, and questioned why McCarthy was at MPD headquarters instead of coordinating with Capitol Police, who were responsible for the security of the Capitol.

The January 6 Committee report also touches on this oversight, noting that no plan from Army leaders ever made it to the troops. “If they came up with a plan, they never shared it with us,” General Walker said, “I never saw a plan from the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army.”

The committee’s report further states that by 4:35 p.m., McCarthy was ready to authorize the deployment of the Guard, but “miscommunication” led to yet another half-hour delay. McCarthy told the committee that he tried to issue the “go” order through his subordinate, General LaNeve—a claim General Walker disputes, insisting the call never occurred. McCarthy rationalized not communicating directly by stating he was at the time drafting his talking points for a planned press conference with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, explaining, “I wanted to get my thoughts collected.”

Authorization finally came at 5:09 p.m. during an ongoing video teleconference that had started at 2:30 p.m.. Defense Department witnesses present with General Walker on January 6 testified to the House Oversight Committee that General James McConville, Chief of Staff of the Army, mentioned during the conference that they had received authorization. Colonel Earl Matthews, who was present in the conference room next to General Walker, clarified that, “General McConville is not in the chain of command, so it wasn’t his order to give.” He added that General McConville was merely conveying that they were authorized to deploy. Matthews further specified that the actual authorization did not come from Secretary McCarthy but instead from Secretary Miller.
Who’s To Blame?

While the January 6 Committee admits that the delay in mobilizing the D.C. National Guard “seems unnecessary and unacceptable,” it attempts to rationalize and excuse McCarthy’s actions. The report suggests his preoccupation with making phone calls to members of Congress, gathering items from his office, crafting a supposed concept of operations that never reached the troops, and preparing remarks for a televised press conference as mitigating factors, justifying his absence from the day’s critical chain of command communications.

This communication breakdown, stemming from McCarthy, unfolded just one day after he, with General Milley’s input, issued the memorandum requiring General Walker to receive personal authorization from McCarthy to deploy the Guard. Despite these circumstances, the January 6 Committee concluded that the military’s processes that day were merely “imperfect” and found “no evidence that the delay was intentional.”

The January 6 Committee attributes the delay to “military processes, institutional caution, and a revised deployment approval process”—specifically, a process meticulously designed by Milley and McCarthy. Yet, the committee pins the blame on “Trump’s eagerness” to engage the U.S. military, alleging it compelled senior military leaders to take extreme “precautions” for the joint session. “Trump’s eagerness” must also have led McCarthy to remain completely unavailable to General Walker just one day after imposing restrictions that effectively stripped Walker of the authority to deploy the Guard without McCarthy’s explicit approval, thereby cementing the hours-long delay.

Never mind Milley’s explicitly stated mission to “fight” against the president “from the inside” and his intent to “plant flags”—intentions that appear to have materialized in the January 5 memo he meticulously outlined with McCarthy, directly undermining the D.C. National Guard’s ability to restore order that day.
Milley’s Insurrection

Milley’s perception of President Trump as a classic authoritarian leader, his willingness to entertain the possibility of Trump engaging in a “Reichstag moment,” and his fears of supposed “Trumpian Brown Shirts fomenting violence,” seems to have influenced his command decisions in the days and weeks leading up to the joint session. While Milley is entitled to his personal political prejudices, it raises the question of whether he lost sight of the fact these were, after all, just his own politically inspired opinions about the president. Did he believe his convictions were so righteous that they justified overstepping legal boundaries and authorizing actions that could be seen as undermining the president’s authority?

The chaotic events of January 6, exacerbated and prolonged by the National Guard’s delayed response, evidently served no benefit to Trump or his allies and instead significantly bolstered the objectives of his adversaries. It’s no wonder the January 6 Committee, which appears solely focused on preventing Trump from ever taking office again, shows little interest in highlighting that Milley, who swore an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States, embarked on a mission to defy the former Commander-in-Chief, and ultimately seems to have sabotaged President Trump on that day.
131 17,205 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/17/2024 05:54 PM
Grocery Rationing Within Four Years

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

There is a lack of public comment and debate about Kamala Harris’s call for price controls on groceries and rents, the most stunning and frightening policy proposal made in my lifetime.

Immediately, of course, people will reply that she is not for price controls as such. It is only a limit on “gouging” (which she variously calls “gauging”) on grocery prices. As for rents, it’s only for larger-scale corporations with many units.

This is nonsense. If there really are national price-gouging police running around, every single seller of groceries, from small convenience stores to farmers’ markets to chain stores, will be vulnerable. No one wants the investigation so they will comply with de facto controls. No one knows for sure what gouging is.

Don Boudreaux is correct:

“A government that threatens to punish merchants for selling at nominal prices higher than deemed appropriate by government clearly intends to control prices. It’s no surprise, therefore, that economists routinely analyze prohibitions against so-called ‘price gouging’ using exactly the same tools they use to analyze other forms of price controls.”

As for rental units, the only result will be fewer amenities, new charges, new fees for what used to be free, less service, and a dramatically reduced incentive to build new units. That will only lead to a pretext for more subsidies, more public housing, and more government provision generally. We have experience with that and it is not good.

The next step is nationalizing housing and rationing of groceries because there will be ever fewer available.

The more the betting odds favor Kamala, the stronger the incentive to raise prices as high as possible now in anticipation of price controls come next year. That will provide even more seeming evidence for the need for more controls and a genuine crackdown.

Price controls lead to shortages of anything they touch, especially in inflationary times. With the Federal Reserve seemingly on the verge of cutting rates for no good reason – rates are very low in real terms by any historical standard – we might see wave two of inflation later next year.

Here are real interest rates historically considered as they stand. Do you see a case here for lowering them?

Next time, however, merchants will not be in a position to respond rationally. Instead, they will confront federal price investigators and prosecutors.

Kamala is wrong that this will be the “first-ever” ban on price gouging. We had that in World War II, along with rationing tickets on meat, animal fats, foil, sugar, flour, foil, coffee, and more. It was a time of extreme austerity, and people put up with it because they believed it was saving resources for the war effort. It was enforced the same as we saw with covid lockdowns: a huge network enlisting state and local institutions, media, and private zealots ready to rat out the rebels.

Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8875 on August 28, 1941. It claimed broad powers to manage all production and consumption in the US. On January 30, 1942, the Emergency Price Control Act granted the Office of Price Administration (OPA) the authority to set price limits and ration food and other commodities. Products were added as shortages intensified.

And yes, all of this was heavily enforced.

In case you are doing the math, that’s a $200,000 fine today for noncompliance. In other words, this was very serious and highly coercive.

Technology limited enforcement, however, and black markets sprung up everywhere. The so-called Meatleggers were the most famous and most demonized by government propaganda.

What happens when the government restricts meat consumption?

During World War II, food rationing led to significant changes in consumption habits in the United States.

Adults and children over 12 were limited to 2 lbs of meat per week, which was monitored through rationing… pic.twitter.com/goCU1FGMnD

— Meat Head (@markeatsmeat) February 20, 2024

In a nation with more agriculture in demographic proximity, people relied on local farmers and various methods of bartering goods and services.

Years went by and somehow people got through it but production for civilian purposes came to a near standstill. The GDP for the period looked like growth but the reality was a continuation and intensification of the Great Depression that began more than a decade earlier.

There are fewer people alive now that recall these days but I’ve known some. They adopted habits of extreme conservation. I once had a neighbor who simply could not bear to throw away tin-foil pie pans because she had lived through rationing. After she died, her kids discovered her vast collection and it shocked them. She was not crazy, just traumatized.

How would such a thing transpire today?

Look at the program SNAP, the new name for food stamps. For those who qualify, the money goes into a special account managed by the federal government. The recipient is sent an EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card, which is used like a credit card in stores. It costs taxpayers some $114 billion a year, and works out as a huge subsidy to Big Agriculture, which is why the program is administered by the Department of Agriculture.

Transitioning that program to the general population would not be difficult. It would be a simple matter of expansion of eligibility. As shortages grow, so too could the program until the entire population would be on it and it would be mandatory. It could also be converted into a mobile app instead of a piece of plastic as a fraud-prevention measure. With everyone carrying cell phones, this would be an easy step.

And where could people spend the money? Only at participating institutions. Would non-participation institutions be entitled to sell food, for example, at local farmers’ co-ops? Maybe at first but that’s before the media demonization campaigns come along to decry the rich who are eating more than their fair share and the sellers who are exploiting the national emergency.

You can see how this all unfolds, and none of it is implausible. Only a few years ago, governments around the country canceled gatherings for religious holidays, limited the numbers of people who could gather in homes, and banned public weddings and funerals. If they can do that, they can do anything, including the rationing of all food.

The program that Harris has proposed is not like other matters that she has flip-flopped on. She is serious and repeats it. She spoke about it even during the debate with Trump but there was no followup or critique of the scheme offered. Nor does such a crazy plan require some legislation and a vote by Congress. It could come in the form of an executive order. Yes, it would be tested by the Supreme Court but, if recent history holds, the program would be long in effect before the Court weighed in. Nor is it clear how it would rule.

The Supreme Court in 1942 heard the case of Albert Yakus, a Boston-based meat seller who was criminally prosecuted for violating the wholesale beef price ceiling. In Yakus vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled for the government and against the meat-selling criminal. That’s the existing precedent.

Nor does all this have to unfold immediately following the inauguration. It can happen as matters become ever worse following anti-gouging edicts and when inflation worsens. After all, a presidency that believes in central planning and forced economic austerity would last a full four years, and the coercion could grow month after month until we have comprehensively enforced deprivation by the end, and no one remembers what it was like to buy groceries at market prices with their own money.

I wish I could say that this is an outlandish and fear-mongering warning. It is not. It is a very realistic scenario based on repeated statements and promises plus the recent history of government management of the population. There is likely another wave of inflation coming. This time it will meet with a promise to use every coercive power of government to prevent increases in prices on groceries and rents.

What if voters actually understood this? What then?

Keep in mind the main legacy of the Covid years: governments learned the fullness of what they could do under the right circumstances. That’s the worst possible lesson but that is what has stuck. The implications for the future are grim.
0 24 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/16/2024 10:44 PM
Gov. Desantis says Florida will conduct their own investigation into the assassination attempt. Hopefully that will include any ties he may have to the deep state.

Somewhat related, just who the hell bothers to put a scope on an SKS? That's as dumb as using a $12 Mannlicher Carcano to assassinate a President.

Onward and upward,
airforce
35 1,330 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/16/2024 10:18 PM
Doom Is the West’s Future

By Paul Craig Roberts


September 16, 2024


As I said would happen, Putin’s refusal to quickly win the conflict with Ukraine has widened the conflict into the beginnings of WW III.

Putin himself now acknowledges this fact. In response to a journalist’s question about the consequences of what appears to be a US-UK decision to permit missile strikes from Ukraine deep into Russia, Putin said:

“The Ukrainian army is not capable of using cutting-edge high-precision long-range systems supplied by the West. They cannot do that. These weapons are impossible to employ without intelligence data from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or US satellites – in general, NATO satellites. This is the first point. Craig Roberts, Paul Best Price: $11.80 Buy New $18.86 (as of 07:22 UTC - Details)

“The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.

“Therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not.

“If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement – it will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine. This will mean their direct involvement in the conflict, and it will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically.

“This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”

My comments are as follows:

Putin has been at war with NATO since the 2007 Munich Security Conference when Putin announced that a multi-polar world was replacing Washington’s uni-polar order. In other words, he threw down the gauntlet to the neoconservatives and their agenda of Washington’s hegemony.

Putin possibly did not comprehend how determined neoconservatives are about hegemony, as a hegemonic agenda undoubtably seems unrealistic to Putin. He did not foresee that his challenge would lead directly to Washington’s overthrow of the Ukrainian government and move to make Ukraine a member of NATO.

Once Washington had Ukraine, Washington began building a large Ukrainian army with which to embarrass Putin by suppressing the Donbas Russians. Putin was like a babe in the woods. For eight years while Washington built a Ukrainian army, Putin put his trust in the Minsk Agreement and remained unprepared for the easily predictable war on the horizon.

When Putin was finally forced to intervene, he did so in a foolish way that guaranteed increasing Western involvement, and by never enforcing any of his red lines now has his back to the wall and cannot ignore NATO/US missile strikes into Russia. Finally, he is forced to acknowledge the truth: “the United States and European countries are at war with Russia.” If Putin had been realistic instead of lost in liberal delusions, the war that seems ready to break loose could have been avoided.

As the cautious Gilbert Doctorow wrote four days ago, “a Third World War fought at least initially with conventional weapons is now just days, at most weeks away.” And this is just the Ukraine scene. Another major war is brewing in the Middle East. Whether or not war is that close, Doctorow’s point is well taken. War can’t be far off when the US and UK governments are discussing firing missiles at Russia.

As I wrote two or three days ago, “as talk has been forbidden, war is now a certainty.” Unlike during the Cold War, the West no longer has independent foreign policy experts. With very few exceptions, such as Scott Ritter, Mearsheimer, Doctorow, and myself, the Western “foreign policy community” speaks with one voice: “US good, Russia bad.” That’s about it. Those few of us who are independent of think tanks and university faculties funded by the military/security complex and neoconservative foundations are labeled “Russian agents/dupes” and worse. We are gradually being criminalized. Scott Ritter on his way to a conference in Russia was taken off the flight by the Washington Gestapo. His passport was confiscated, and his home was invaded. Currently, charges are being made against Americans accused of cooperating with “Russian disinformation,” by which is meant reporting a fact or expressing an opinion that is inconsistent with the official narratives.

As one thoroughly experienced with the 20th century Cold War, I know that talk between Americans and Russians was the solution, not the problem. When talk is defined as the problem, as Washington defines it today, war is the result.

And that is where we are headed. Even the cautious and understated Doctorow sees in Washington an “insane recklessness” that threatens life on earth. What is the point of it? Ukraine’s fraudulent borders while our own go undefended? Roberts, Dr. Paul Craig Best Price: $7.49 Buy New $15.31 (as of 10:30 UTC - Details)

Americans, Europeans, Russians, indeed the entire world need to understand that in the government in Washington there is not one ounce of intelligence or integrity. The American president is senile. The National Security Council is a collection of morons. Not a single one of them has achieved any distinction other than being a mouthpiece for the military/security complex. The military’s officer ranks have been purged to make room for sexual perverts, women, and “racial minorities.” The notion among conservatives that the US military is going to save us is laughable. The military is tamed with fangs pulled and has been forced to accept zero promotions for white Americans until the military has achieved in the officer ranks “equity” for sexual perverts, women and “racial minorities.”

The ruling establishment is determined to install their puppet Kamala in the White House. She has always prostituted herself to move ahead, and now is her big chance. Unless Democrats get a surprise from Trump winning in blue states, the 2024 election will be stolen in the swing states exactly as it was in 2020. Indeed, as local news reports have made clear, many of the theft mechanisms used in 2020 have been legalized. It is now legal in swing states for the Democrats to steal the election.

When the election is stolen, what will Americans do about it? Nothing. They will accept tyranny before they will fight.

Fighting requires belief, but Americans’ beliefs have been destroyed by decades of liberal/left “education” that has undermined Western civilization by presenting it as a racist, misogynist scheme of exploitation of women and “minorities” by white supremacists. White kids go to taxpayer-financed schools funded by their parents to learn that they have been born into the wrong body and that they, their parents and grandparents are racists who owe reparations to “suppressed minorities.” They are being prepared to pay an additional round of taxes to those declared to be their victims. They are being sexualized at an early age and prepared for pedophiles.

We must be honest. This is a correct portrayal of America and the entire West today. Every Western government is on the side of immigrant-invaders against the ethnic citizens who comprise the countries.

Now, tell me, how can a social, political, belief system this weak go to war with real people such as Russians, Chinese, Iranians? They cannot.

The only future the Western world has is Doom.
0 25 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/15/2024 12:32 AM
Exclusive — Jim Jordan: Americans Are Witnessing the Consequences of an Open Border


The American people are witnessing the consequences of an open border under Vice President Kamala Harris’s leadership, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said during an appearance on Breitbart News Saturday, noting that the United States went from a “secure border to no border.”

This week, Republicans in Congress had victims of migrant crime testify, and Jordan described it as “tough to listen to.”

“They were great witnesses, don’t get me wrong. But it was just the terrible things that happened to these three young ladies, and then, of course, the one young man, the son … his mom talked about one time he used fentanyl and it took his life, and he was — it was a good young man — 15-year-old freshman in high school,” he said.

“It’s just powerful stories that underscore what happens when you have an open border. And I tell everyone, literally, we went from a secure border to no border, and you’re seeing it play out,” he said, noting that some of the illegal migrants who have come into the country are on the terrorist watch list.

All of this has resulted in “terrible crime that happened to the families that we had testify this week … and others around the country.”

“And then, of course, you got the situation where you have the stress on your education system, your health care system, your housing market, like we have in Springfield, Ohio, where you have what some estimates are 20,000 Haitians come into a community of 60,000,” he said. “So this is what happens when you don’t have a border, when you have a commander-in-chief and an administration who simply will not enforce the law,” he explained, emphasizing that Harris is at fault, as she and Biden let millions into the country.
2 64 Read More
UPN: United Patriot Network
09/06/2024 07:00 PM
Is the Kursk Offensive a benefit or a blunder? Only time will tell, but for now Ukraine's top military commander, Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi. says the strategy is working.

Quote
The commander in chief of the Ukrainian military, Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, said Thursday that the Kursk offensive has been effective and the “strategy is working” to block Russian forces from taking more territory in eastern Ukraine.

Syrskyi told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that the Kursk operation “reduced the threat of an enemy offensive” and prevented a Russian attack, saying Moscow had amassed tens of thousands of troops in the region, including experienced airborne ones.

He also said that Ukrainian forces have stalled the Russian advance in eastern Ukraine, including around the strategic railroad town of Pokrovsk.

“Over the last six days the enemy hasn’t advanced a single meter in the Pokrovsk direction. In other words, our strategy is working,” he said. “We’ve taken away their ability to maneuver and to deploy their reinforcement forces from other directions … and this weakening has definitely been felt in other areas.”

Syrskyi’s comments come as Ukrainian forces face a massive Russian attack in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, with troops closing in on not only Pokrovsk but also the cities of Chasiv Yar and Toretsk, both of which could help Russia advance further if captured.

Ukraine made a surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region on Aug. 6, a move that caught Moscow off guard and was initially hailed as a brilliant counteroffensive that demonstrated the Kremlin had weak borders.

But nearly a month since the incursion, Ukraine has not achieved one of its main objectives — diverting a sufficient number of Russian troops from the front lines to Kursk to ease up pressure there — leading to criticism of whether the gamble worked....


Read the whole thing at the link.

Onward and upward,
airforce
285 51,106 Read More
.
©>
©All information posted on this site is the private property of the individual author and AWRM.net and may not be reproduced without permission. © 2001-2020 AWRM.net All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1