Category Archives: Unconstitutional War

Obama to Cut Medical Benefits for Active / Retired Military – Not Union Workers

Irs takes your money, congress uses it to arm your enemies then they use it to fight the enemies they armed

It is not unconstitutional to cut benefits for military men and women, however, I do believe that it is unconstitutional to use the military as it has been used over the past several decades, leading us to perpetual debt and increasing taxation. It’s at the very least immoral the way the military has been used recently and how badly they are begin treated currently.

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved in the decision making process. Why do we cut individual benefits for people but still maintain unconstitutional and unnecessary wars that are fought immorally for no good reason except lining rich people’s pockets?

If we had smaller military but payed them well and gave them good benefits to protect OUR borders rather than posting them in every country across the globe where some wealthy American might have something to gain we would be protecting our land and our citizens without killing and provoking others overseas to hate us and want to retaliate.

At this point the United States arms people that hate us and then waits for them to attack us and then uses the attack that we enabled as an excuse to occupy a country that we don’t need to be in for the security of the United States, but only for natural resources and economic gains (for some people but at a loss for taxpayers).

Shouldn’t our government be accountable to give people what they have already promised to give them? Many people have worked many years in the armed forces to provide for their families and have a secure retirement. I think for the people who are already serving, they should get the benefits they were expecting.

Obama to Cut Medical Benefits for Active / Retired Military – Not Union Workers

In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.

The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.

Gertz added:

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 – 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums “ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.”

“According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048,” Gertz wrote.

Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone.

Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military – but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention.

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” one aide said.

John Hayward of Human Events adds:

Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,” according to critics.

There will be congressional hearings on the new military health care policies next month. Opposition is building in Congress, and among veterans’ organizations, including the VFW, which has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.”

Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel – who are not unionized – and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.

Gertz wrote:

A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”

The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said.

At least one Congressman is standing with the military on this issue.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

Irs takes your money, congress uses it to arm your enemies then they use it to fight the enemies they armed“We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more,” he added.

McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan “a breach of faith.”

The Beacon also noted the curious timing of the plan, which is set to begin next year – after the 2012 elections. Critics say this is designed so as not to upset military voters.

It’s one more reason Barack Hussein Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in November.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers?utm_content=buffer8b591&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer

Facebooktwitterrss

Pentagon Seeks Another $79 Billion for Afghan War | Already Funded With $526 Billion Including War Fund

Propaganda is now legal in the United states

Well, it’s like I always say, “There’s no real reason to NOT ask for an EXTRA $79 billion for a fake BS war that kills far more civilians than supposed “terrorists”, when you could just ask for another $79 billion for a fake BS war that kills far more civilians that terrorists.”

Actually, I don’t always say that. I just made that up.

Clever. I know…

But, really… if you are already getting $526 billion dollars in taxpayer funds to continue and unnecessary war for the benefit of the rich to the detriment of the citizens, then HOW MUCH MORE do you actually NEED?

I wonder which departments funds the propaganda machine and the government owned media?

Pentagon Seeks Another $79 Billion for Afghan War | Already Funded With $526 Billion

by Jason Ditz

Pentagon officials have submitted a new request for another $79.4 billion for “overseas contingency operations,” essentially to pay for the 2014 fighting of the Afghan War. The request is above and beyond the $526 billion the Pentagon is already seeking for 2014, which was supposed to include the war’s costs.

Propaganda is now legal in the United statesRequests for supplemental war funds are nothing new for the Pentagon, but the latest request comes in the context of a growing budget crisis in Afghanistan, with the 2013 “contingency funds” already burned through as costs continue to soar.

The Pentagon’s estimates for their costs have been much too low, as the “success” that is always supposed to be just around the corner in Afghanistan never pans out, and officials conceded in recent comments that the costs of the war may continue to rise “substantially” going forward.

Officials are bragging that the 2014 request is somewhat less than the 2013 version, but the reality is that with surge troops being withdrawn, the savings were supposed to be significant. Instead, the war continues as an all-consuming sinkhole for tax money, with no end in sight and the Pentagon’s best estimates inevitably falling far short.

 

Facebooktwitterrss

US Suspends Constitution in Permanent World War on Terror – Military Granted Supreme Power to Police Our Streets

Yeah sure, they hate us because we're free not because we perpetually bomb them, slaughter civilians,and pass it off as "collateral damage"

US Suspends Constitution in Permanent World War on Terror

Eric Blair
Activist Post

Two disturbing developments have occurred in the last couple of days that have gone relatively unnoticed compared to the recent IRS, AP, and Benghazi scandals.

U.S. Grants itself more power to be in a state of perpetual war

First, the senate is debating an expansion of the already broad powers of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) so the U.S. can essentially engage any area in the world in the war on terror, including America. Which brings us to the second development: the Pentagon has recently granted itself police powers on American soil.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Sheehan told Congress yesterday that the AUMF authorized the US military to operate on a worldwide battlefield from Boston to Pakistan.  Sheehan emphasized that the Administration is authorized to put boots on the ground wherever the enemy chooses to base themselves, essentially ignoring the declaration of war clause in the US Constitution.

Senator Angus King said this interpretation of the AUMF is a “nullity” to the Constitution because it ignores Congress’ role to declare war.  King called it the “most astoundingly disturbing hearing” he’s been to in the Senate.

Even ultra-hawk John McCain agreed that the AUMF has gone way beyond its authority.

“This authority … has grown way out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed, that motivated the United States Congress to pass the authorization for the use of military force that we did in 2001,” McCain said.

Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece describing how this hearing reveals the not-so-secret plan to make the war on terror a permanent fixture in Western society.

Greenwald writes:

 

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war – justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism – that is the single greatest cause of that threat.

 

A self-perpetuating permanent war against a shadowy undefinable enemy appears to be the future of American foreign policy.  How convenient for the war machine and tyrants who claim surveillance is safety.

Military now has authority to police the police, the streets and the entire United States

But perhaps most disturbing of all of this is the military’s authority to police American streets as if it was in civil war. For all those still in denial that America is a militarized police state, this should be the ultimate cure to your delusion.

 

Jeff Morey of AlterNet writes:

 By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: “Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”

 

A law from 1878 called the Posse Comitatus Act was put in place to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering with local law enforcement.  But now, the DoD claims they’ve had this authority for over 100 years.

“The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy,” said an unnamed defense official who also emphasized that all soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies “foreign and domestic” indicating that citizens are a threat to the Constitution.

Yet, the Constitution is a document that polices the government, not the people. In other words, the only people who can be “enemies” of the Constitution are those who took an oath to defend it. Therefore, only government officials can be an enemy the Constitution.

This follows a recent West Point study that sought to define the American people as “domestic enemies” in order to justify soldiers breaking their oath to corral pesky citizens.

The West Point Terrorism Center wrote that “conspiracy theorists” who worry that local law enforcement will be steadily replaced by federally-controlled law enforcement could potentially be a domestic enemy:

 

Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order,” (NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another version of global government. The NWO will be advanced, they believe, via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement agencies into a federally controlled “National Police” agency that will in turn merge with a “Multi-National Peace Keeping Force.” The latter deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American society’s deficiencies and US government incompetency.

 

So, as the US military claims to have the authority to be a “National Police” force, researchers who claim there is an agenda to do just that are now labeled as domestic terrorists?

Does this make any sense? Will oath takers see through these ridiculous interpretations and engage the real domestic enemy to the Constitution? Or will they just follow orders when the time comes to crack down on Americans?

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/05/us-suspends-constitution-in-permanent-world-war-on-terror-2451292.html?utm_content=beforeit39snews-buttonsunderheadline&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2Fb4tR&utm_source=direct-b4in.info

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!