General Washington leading the attack at the Battle of Trenton
The Battle of Trenton took place on December 26, 1776, during the American Revolutionary War after General George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River north of Trenton, New Jersey. The hazardous crossing in adverse weather allowed Washington to lead the main body of the Continental Army against Hessian soldiers garrisoned at Trenton. After a brief struggle, nearly the entire Hessian force was captured, with negligible losses to the Americans. The battle boosted the Continental Army’s flagging morale, and inspired re-enlistments.
The Continental Army had previously suffered several defeats in New York and had been forced to retreat across to Pennsylvania via New Jersey. Morale in the army was low; in an attempt to save the army and end the year on a positive note, George Washington—Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army—devised a plan to cross the Delaware River on Christmas night and surround the Hessian garrison.
Because the river was icy, the crossing proved dangerous. Two of the offensive groups were unable to cross the river, leaving Washington and his 2,400 men alone in the assault. The army marched 9 miles (14 km) south to Trenton. The Hessians had lowered their guard, thinking they were safe from the American army, and didn’t even put a dawn sentry. After having an enormous Christmas feast, they fell asleep. Washington caught them off guard and before the Hessians could resist, Washington captured them. Almost two thirds of the 1,500 man garrison was captured, with the exception of a few who escaped across Assunpink Creek.
Despite the battle’s small numbers, its effect was enormous throughout the colonies. The revolution itself had been in doubt only a week earlier, and the army seemed on the verge of collapse. However, with this victory, soldiers agreed to stay and new recruits came and joined the ranks.
Battle in the Streets of Trenton
General George Washington crossing the Delaware at the Battle of Trenton on Christmas night 1776 by Emmanuel Leutze
Nevada News & Views: The e-Newsletter will be taking a much-needed holiday hiatus until Monday; however, I’ll still post major stories, breaking news and commentary on the newsblog at www.NevadaNewsandViews.com over the weekend. Merry Christmas – and do keep a warm thought for our troops overseas!
TODAY’S NN&V HEADLINES
Ten Things That Will Make You Sick about Harry Reid’s Health Care Bill (Rep. John Shadegg) – Everywhere I go people tell me that Democrats say Republicans are misrepresenting the health care bills and claiming they are worse than they really are. Well, here’s a starting list and you can decide if Republicans are crying wolf.
A Conservative Alternative to ObamaCare (Sue Lowden) – Rather than crippling our nation with higher debt and higher taxes to fund government-run health care, I have called for solutions that can begin to drive down the cost of health insurance, thus making it more accessible to those who do not have coverage today.
Reid Should Read His Own Bill Before Crushing Nevada Families (Office of the Nevada Governor) – Senator Harry Reid suggested Governor Gibbons misunderstands the health care bill and should read it. Governor Gibbons replied, “We have read the bill and THAT’S exactly what troubles us.”
Governor Will Ask AG to Weigh in on Constitutionality of Reid Health Care Bill (Sean Whaley/Nevada News Bureau) – Gov. Jim Gibbons said today he will ask the state attorney general to review the health care legislation scheduled for a vote tomorrow in the U.S. Senate to determine if it violates the U.S. Constitution by forcing everyone to have health insurance.
How Did Harry Reid Become Rich? (Mark Noonan) – According to Open Secrets, Senator Harry Reid has a minimum net worth of $2,827,056.00, a maximum worth of $6,307,999.00 and an average net worth of $4,567,527.00. Why all the discrepancies?
Nevada’s Population Growth Slows, Fourth Congressional Seat Still Likely (Sean Whaley/Nevada News Bureau) – Nevada’s once red-hot population growth slowed significantly this year compared to 2008, expanding by just over 27,000 residents to 2.64 million, according to an estimate released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.
October Taxable Sales Continue Year-Long Double-Digit Slump (Sean Whaley/Nevada News Bureau) – Nevada’s statewide taxable sales continued to generate dismal numbers in October, plunging 17.8 percent compared to the same month in 2008, a report released today by the Department of Taxation shows.
Remind you of anyone or anything? Fascism and tyrants have always been with us and only a whistle away… Welcome to the Tea Party movement – we are the John Does and we are pissed. We are in an enhanced replay of the Great Depression and a power grab we have never before seen in the United States. Well, Americans will not idly sit by while you try to grind us down and profit from our suffering. May the John Does have it – may they take America back from the Marxist elitists and restore the Constitution…
Notice that INTERPOL is the only entity remotely close to a law-enforcement agency. The overwhelming majority of entries can be viewed as humanitarian or trade. Notice further that only two entries have “limited privileges” – INTERPOL and the International Food Policy Research Institute. Of course, now, the IFPRI stands alone in that category.
Clyde Middleton has done a tremendous amount of research on this with Steve Schippert of ThreatsWatch.org. From Clyde:
INTERPOL is more a cooperative than an entity – police organizations around the world participate. Our own DOJ has “INTERPOL” officers. By doing this, Obama has taken a section of our own Department of Justice and placed it beyond Freedom of Information and Search & Seizure.
Is this a prelude to an international governing body with dominion over the US? The implications are incredibly broad.
It’s truly frightening.
Our recourse is to demand the Senate hold hearings on this without delay.
Two days ago I received some other leads from Nancy Jacques. Here’s her take on this and it is a good one:
Obama’s most recent move of amending Executive Order 12425 is only 1 piece of the puzzle. It’s consistent with, and appears strongly connected to the legislation, DoD Directive, Rand Corp Report, and other information delineated below (notice HR 645 was introduced right after Obama was sworn in as President):
H.R. 675: “TO AMEND TITLE 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.” introduced Jan 26, 2009 (in committee)
It appears he’s implementing the framework – legislatively – needed to take control of the American people very soon. Even though it may appear that the use of this civilian force will be used within the U.S. to protect us, it will certainly be used against those that this administration deems a risk to the U.S. as defined in the Homeland Security report identifying right-wing, military vets, etc. as a danger to the U.S.
Update: Also from Nancy Jacques, some troubling text in each bill – and particularly DoD Directive 1404.10.
DoD Directive 1404.10: “DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” dated Jan 23, 2009:
INFO: “The new 1404.10 cancels the prior directive of the same designation (” Emergency-Essential (E-E) DoD U.S. Citizen Civilian Employees”), which was issued in 1992 under President Clinton. The 1992 directive specifically deals with overseas deployments of civilian personnel. It does not mention terms like “restoration of order” or “stability operations”, prominently featured in the new directive.
In fact, those functions are central to the mission of President Obama’s new DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce:
Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05…
The 1992 directive mentions the term “overseas” no fewer than 33 times. The 2009 directive does not mention the term “overseas” in the body of the directive even once.”
SPECIFIC TEXT in this directive (see text that I underlined):
4. POLICY. It is DoD policy to:
a. Rely on a mix of capable military members and DoD civilian employees to meet DoD global national security mission requirements. DoD civilian employees are an integral part of the Total Force. They serve in a variety of positions, provide essential capabilities and, where appropriate for civilians to do so, support mission requirements such as combat, contingencies, emergency operations; humanitarian and civic assistance activities; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense, herein collectively referred to as “expeditionary requirements.”
b. Identify a subset of the DoD civilian workforce as the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce. These civilian employees are organized, ready, trained, cleared, and equipped in a manner that enhances their availability to mobilize and respond urgently to expeditionary requirements.
c. Integrate DoD civilian workforce capabilities into DoD Total Force planning processes.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) PURPOSE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.—The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure —–
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. [my note: “other appropriate needs” is subjective and open-ended. It could mean anything they want it to mean].
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(e) TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.—If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS. [my note: this connects H.R. 645 to 42 U.S.C. 5122, Sec 102]
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(2) EMERGENCY.—The term ‘‘emergency’’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(3) MAJOR DISASTER.—The term ‘‘major disaster’’ has the meaning given such term in section102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
Sec 102 of 42 U.S.C. 5122 in which H.R. 645 can apply:
SEC. 102. As used in this Act—
(1) EMERGENCY.—‘‘Emergency’’ means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.
(2) MAJOR DISASTER.—‘‘Major disaster’’ means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.
H.R. 675: “TO AMEND TITLE 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.” introduced Jan 26, 2009:
‘(b) Persons To Have Authority- Subsection (a) applies to any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense whose duties include–
‘(1) enforcing laws enacted for the protection of persons and property;
‘(2) preventing breaches of the peace and suppressing affrays or unlawful assemblies; [my note: definition of affray [əˈfreɪ] n (Law) Law a fight, noisy quarrel, or disturbance between two or more persons in a public place.]
‘(3) conducting, supervising, or coordinating investigations of criminal activity in programs and operations of the Department of Defense; or
‘(4) enforcing any rules or regulations with respect to Department of Defense property prescribed by duly authorized officials.
Weighing all considerations, the researchers concluded that the best option would be a 6,000-person hybrid force headquartered in the U.S. Marshals Service. The personnel in reserve status could be employed in state and local police forces so they would be able to exercise police functions in a civilian population daily and could be called up as needed. The Marshals Service was deemed to have many of the requisite skills. However, its training and management capabilities would need to be expanded to take on this large mission, and it would have to recruit additional personnel as well. The annual cost, $637 million, is reasonable given the capability it buys. The cost savings in relieving military forces of these duties could be greater than required to create the SPF.
The Military Police option was attractive for a number of reasons, especially its capacity, training, and logistical capabilities, but its inability to engage in policing activities when not deployed was a major stumbling block. The Posse Comitatus Act precludes military personnel from exercising police functions in a civilian setting, and legislative relief might be difficult to get. Even if such relief were forthcoming, it is unclear where and how routine police skills might be honed.
Creation of a civilian SPF would not affect the roles that other elements of the U.S. government would play. Rather, it would complement other agencies such as the departments of Defense and State. But the SPF would provide a necessary capability, and the U.S. Army should support its creation.