A “Conspiracy Theory” Based at The New York Times

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The Obama Administration is facilitating the activities of foreign jihadists and al Qaeda throughout the Middle East, while claiming that it is fighting al Qaeda and that the organization has been “decimated.” This monumental deception is being carried out not only by the administration but its supporters. It is a crime that has cost four American lives in Benghazi and three in the kidnapping and hostage crisis in Algeria.

The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) is running interference for the Obama Administration by attacking those, like Senator Rand Paul, who are trying to expose the suicidal policy.

In an item headlined, “Senator questions Secretary of State about right-wing conspiracy theory,” CAP says Paul used Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “to advance a bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory involving alleged gun-running from Libya to Syria, via Turkey.” The basic facts about the so-called “right-wing conspiracy theory” have been reported by The New York Times, hardly a right-wing propaganda organ. And the “conspiracy” also involves Qatar, the host and sponsor of Osama bin Laden’s favorite television channel, Al Jazeera, now poised to get into 40-50 million American homes through the purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV.

The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration “secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar” in 2011 and that “Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants.” These rebels stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing four Americans, in a major foreign policy scandal that continues to this day. It was the reason for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing featuring the Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton exchange.

It’s true that the paper claimed the U.S. was somewhat caught off-guard by the arms going into the hands of anti-American jihadists. But that is hard to believe, considering that Qatar, the sponsor of “Terror TV” Channel Al Jazeera, is a close ally of the Obama Administration. The administration has approved the entry of “Al Jazeera America” into the U.S. media market, even though Qatar evaded the law requiring federal approval of a foreign acquisition of a U.S. company that has national security implications. Obama’s Department of Justice refuses to enforce the law that requires Al Jazeera programs to be labeled as foreign propaganda when aired in the U.S.

Any notion that all of this is happening by accident has been undermined by an additional report from the Times that the CIA was using Turkey and “a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood” to send weapons to Islamists fighting the regime in Syria. The weapons were being “paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” the paper reported.

By ignoring these facts, which have not been disputed, the Center for American Progress (CAP) is playing a role in the current controversy and scandal which is comparable to what the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) did in regard to U.S. policy toward China in the 1940s. The IPR was an unofficial arm of the State Department which facilitated the Communist takeover of China in 1949. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee found the IPR to be “an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence.”

CAP can be said to be an unofficial arm of the State Department that is facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of such countries as Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The evidence shows that the administration is working hand-in-glove with avowed enemies of the United States. As bad as this is, the jihadists getting U.S. support through Turkey and Qatar will eventually turn their attention to the U.S. homeland, setting the stage for another 9/11 attack. When they do so, the new “Al Jazeera America” will be their mouthpiece, in the same way that Al Jazeera ran a story describing the Mali terrorists as “gentle.”

In fact, the kidnapping and murder of three Americans by al-Qaeda terrorists in Mali is clearly another manifestation of this policy because the arms the U.S. helped send to the “rebels” in Libya may have been used by these same terrorists to kill the American hostages.

It is in this context that Rand Paul asked Hillary Clinton, “…it’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton responded, “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And I will see what information is available and…”

Paul interjected, “You’re saying you don’t know?”

Clinton: “I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.”

This is stonewalling of the worst kind. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State and has to be knowledgeable of the policy that she is helping to implement.

There was a time, as noted, when Congress had committees and subcommittees which examined the betrayal of American interests by investigating domestic groups like the IPR. Today, the Center for American Progress openly pushes the same agenda as the Muslim Brotherhood and other enemies of the United States and members of Congress have no way to officially question what they are doing and why.

Except for a few members such as Senator Paul, Congress is asleep at the switch, unable or unwilling to even question the ongoing betrayal. Indeed, Rep. Michael McCaul, the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has been silent regarding the illegal Al Jazeera purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV.

  • Please call the House Homeland Security Committee office at 202-226-8417 and ask Chairman McCaul to investigate Al-Jazeera’s ties to terrorist groups killing Americans.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


Is He for Real?

Arlene from Isreal

Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)

The “he” I am referring to in this instance is John Kerry, Obama’s secretary of state-designate. At confirmation hearings on Thursday, he spoke about his hope that he will be able to get the “peace process” going again.

He described this as “an incredibly important issue,” explaining that (are you ready?):

“So much of what we need to aspire to achieve and what we need globally — all of this is tied to what can and doesn’t happen with respect to Israel/Palestine (sic).


They won’t give it up: this fiction that Israel’s achieving a negotiated settlement with the PLO will ameliorate problems across the Middle East, if not, as Kerry indicated, around the world. It should only be that we had this power, and I ponder what it is that makes Kerry, as well as his soon-to-be boss Obama and others in the Obama stable of decision makers, so unwilling to let go of this ludicrous myth.

Jonathan Rosenblum, in an excellent piece — “One nomination worse than the next” — in yesterday’s JPost, addresses this same issue. Rosenblum writes about Hagel, Obama’s choice for secretary of defense, who said:

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central, not peripheral, to US vital security interests in combating terrorism, preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon, stability in the Middle East and US and global energy security.”

Rosenblum deals with precisely how ludicrous this notion is. He doesn’t say this explicitly, but I will: anyone with a capacity to critically analyze the situation in the Middle East cannot honestly arrive at the conclusion that the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict is at the heart of it all. It does not compute. Although various Muslim nations make declarations about their support for the Palestinian Arabs, it is obvious as they go about their tortured business that this issue is not what is driving them.

What Rosenblum does say is this:

“…[Ayatollah Khomeini] defined the 1979 Iranian revolution from the start as an Islamic revolution. He and his successors identified nuclear weapons as a potentially important tool in spreading that revolution and immunizing Iran against countermeasures from the West.

“And Israel has precious little to do with the instability in the Middle East, as the events of the past year have made abundantly clear. Israel has not kept Egypt from being able to grow enough grain…

“…Israel has nothing to do with the second-class status of women in almost every Muslim society, and the lost potential that follows. Israel is not responsible for the high rates of illiteracy and paucity of academic production of the Arab world…The Sunni-Shi’ite divide that continues to roil Muslim countries pre-existed the State of Israel by more than a millennium.

“Israel was not an issue during the Arab Spring, or in the Libyan civil war, or in the Syrian civil war…

“It is the perpetual backwardness of Arab and Muslim societies that causes such resentment and hatred of the West, of which the US is the principle representative…”



Rosenblum begins this piece by quoting Barry Rubin (I have added emphasis): “one of the Middle East’s shrewdest analysts,” who said of Obama’s three nominees, Kerry, Hagel and Brennan, “they are all stupid people…stupid arrogant people with terrible ideas.”

Rosenblum ends his piece by asking, “Could someone in the White House be sending Israel a message?” This is, I assume, a rhetorical question. Clearly, Obama has selected individuals who reflect and will advance his own viewpoint.


Another excellent article in yesterday’s JPost was that of Sarah Honig, a tell-it-like-it is commentator par excellence. In “The unwitting indecency,” she gives us a painful and startling look at what Israel is up against in world opinion. Another instance of mindlessness — of conferring attributes upon Israel that do not conform to reality. In this instance, however, it’s not about power that ostensibly Israel has, but how thoroughly vile Israel is.

Writes Honig (emphasis added):

Our image has exasperatingly little to do with who we are. Distortions about us are blithely disseminated to the most susceptible and gullible members of society. Israel’s role as a scoundrel is made an axiomatic given, a premise for decent by distant folks, who know next to nothing (least of all Israel’s size) and couldn’t care less about the Mideast and its staggering complexities. But they are convinced that we are the bad guys.

…Europe fully lives up to all the antagonism we have come to expect from the continent’s denizens. They were always highly adept, especially in their darkest epochs, at dressing up their intense bigotry in holier-than-thou sanctimony. It’s no different now…

“…to deny a grotesque double standard against Israel is either to misperceive reality or to deliberately misrepresent it for narrow political purposes.”

Recently, Honig was in Cahersivseen, a tiny, picturesque town in southwestern Ireland. There, on the main street, she encountered “three boisterous teenagers in Santa hats, carrying a collection box and big signs reading ‘Free Palestine.’ They solicited my contribution.

“I asked, ‘Free Palestine from whom?’

“The cheery trio’s swift answer was unambiguous: ‘The Jews.’

“I pressed on. ‘Do you know where your money would go?’

“The boys: ‘To plant olive trees.’

“‘Are you sure,’ I continued, as kindly-looking little old ladies generously opened their purses and dropped coins and bills into the collection box, ‘that this money wouldn’t fund terrorists and murders?’

“Their retort threw me for a loop: ‘What do you have against Palestinians? What have they done to you? They are only against Jews. Jews are evil.’

Honig subsequently discovered that these kids were part of an official school project, and encountered their teacher who explained this was part of a project to further a humanitarian goal.

“The squawking was all about rights, but distinctly not about the rights of Jews which are excluded from the curriculum. The violated rights are those of Palestinian Arabs and the violators are Israeli Jews. And all this is crudely imparted under the auspices of a state’s school system.

“And herein lies our problem–the one too many Israelis avoid, be it out of ignorance or political machination. We, as a people, face bias we can do nothing about. There’s power predisposition against us. It’s not fueled by our behavior, because nobody knows much how we behave and nobody cares to learn.

“The Cahersiveen youngsters will surely grow into charming decent adults, but ingrained in their psyches from a young age will be the vague notion of Jewish villains and Palestinian martyrs. Indoctrination of impressionable minds — who regard their instructors as respected experts — creates biased adults. Their bias, because it was formed so early, is intangible and im impervious to all Israeli public relations and learned discourse.”



Honig notes that some may say Ireland, with its history of anti-Semitism, is atypical. But, she argues, “Ireland isn’t unique. What’s bon ton there is very bon ton in other countries, with other sordid pasts and intrinsic predilections against our sort — predilections that our homegrown left-wing and post-Zionist politicos persuade naive and complacent Israelis to forget, so we may persist in our self-flagellating ways.”


If we are not already into the third intifada, we’re on the edge. According to Kfir Brigade Commander Colonel Udi Ben Muha, cited by YNet, “The trends on the ground are changing. There is a rise in hostile and terror activity ever since Operation Pillar of Defense and a single event can, indeed, ignite the entire sector.”

His comment followed an incident in which a protest by 200 Palestinian Arabs in the village of Anin, west of Jenin, became violent, with rioters hurling stones at soldiers. They were dispersed by crowd-control measures.

Currently battalions within the Kfir Brigade are undergoing special training in urban warfare. Included in the training is filming proof that terror groups operating in its areas of responsibility are using kindergartens and mosques as their bases of operation.


There is very little additional to say at this point regarding the elections here and the negotiations for the coalition which are now about to take place. There are too many conflicting rumors floating to permit further analysis now.

While the impression is being advanced that the make-up of the new Knesset — the 19th — will be more left-leaning than the previous, the facts don’t bear this out:

The incoming Knesset will be the most religious in the State’s history, with one out of three living a religious lifestyle. Additionally, 12 members of the new Knesset — 10% — live over the Green Line.

Counted in both of these groups is Orit Struk, who has lived with her husband, a rabbi, in Hevron, for over 30 years, and came in on the Habayit Hayehudi list. She has served as a spokesperson for the Jewish community of Hevron, founded the Organization for Human Rights in Judea and Samaria, and served as director of the Knesset’s Land of Israel caucus, which has had several successes.

I believe this is the first time that someone from Hevron will be in the Knesset and I would be hard put to think of anyone better to serve in this position.

Credit: Kawther


Progressive Congressmen Gather to Plot Agenda: Alinsky Invoked

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal


A major focus of this blog is to expose how radical and Marxist groups have huge influence on Democratic Party policy.

One key transmission belt for socialist policy, from the Marxist left, to the floor of the US Congress, is Progressive Democrats of America – a tool of the notorious Institute for Policy Studies and the US’ largest Marxist organization, Democratic Socialists of America.

Tim Carpenter, PDA’sNational Director, for example, is a former leader of Orange County Democratic Socialists of America.

According to PDA’s website:

Since its founding in Roxbury, Massachusetts, in July 2004, PDA has aggressively worked an “inside/outside” strategy, networking progressive Democratic elected officials inside the Beltway with grassroots Democrats and progressive movement activists across the country.

By using this “inside-outside” strategy, the Democrat Party hard left, conspire with their Marxist allies to organize marches and demonstrations in the streets to create the illusion of widespread public support for the “progressive” Congress members own radical agenda.

By using the confrontational tactics of legendary Chicago radical Saul Alinsky, congressional far leftists, mostly from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, are able to bully their few remaining moderate Democrat colleagues into toeing the “Party Line.”

On January 19, 2013, in Washington, D.C., Progressive Democrats of America, gathered with left-leaning members of Congress and social movement leaders, Progressive Central: The Peoples’ Inauguration, to lay out the organization’s agenda for the next four years.

According to Cole Stangler of the Institute for Policy Studies/Democratic Socialists of America allied Chicago based journal, In These Times:

Progressive Democrats of America, whose allies in Congress come from the activist wing of the 76-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, engages in what it calls an “inside-outside” strategy of connecting the demands of progressive social movements to legislative action from members of Congress…

Progressive Central: The Peoples’ Inauguration, the third such gathering in the group’s eight-year existence, embodied that “inside-outside” spirit, as PDA-backed members of Congress spoke on panels with activists from the labor, peace and environmental movements at the University of the District of Columbia’s law school. At other times during the conference, attendees mingled outside in a hall that featured tabling from groups like CODEPINK, Public Citizen and Democratic Socialists of America.

According to Cole Stangler, several PDA backed Democrats boasted to the conference of plans to introduce several pieces of legislation, in the 113th Congress, that will enjoy “widespread support on the American left.”

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), said he would introduce a full employment act. Conyers would also again introduce a version of the so-called “Medicare-for-all” bill, which would create a single-payer universal healthcare system.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), promised he would introduce a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not people, in addition to supporting a bill that would strengthen the Voting Rights Act. McGovern, like other PDA allies in Congress, also said that defense cuts would be a priority, telling the audience to rousing applause, “If I had my way, I would shut down every U.S. military base in the Middle East right now.”

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), committed to introducing a bill, backed prominently by the National Nurses United union, to implement a tax on all financial transactions, the so-called Robin Hood tax.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told In These Times that he was worried his party leadership might agree to a future budget deal that could include cuts to Social Security.

“I’m concerned,” Grijalva said. “But none of that’s going to pass without Democrats, so I think for the Progressive Caucus and our 70-odd members, holding the line can be huge leverage in this discussion. I’m optimistic about the role we can play. This is where the outside-inside [strategy] is so critical, because the pressure from the outside, not just on progressive members of Congress but on all members of Congress, is going to be critical to holding the line.”

“I’m a Saul Alinsky guy, you know, that’s where I learned this stuff,” said Grijalva. “There’s gotta be some victories regardless of how small they are. Sometimes the victory with this group is going to be keeping the worst from happening.”


Colonel Gordon Batcheller on “Women in Combat”

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Colonel Gordon D. Batcheller, USMC, Ret.

Colonel Gordon D. Batcheller, USMC, Ret.

This is excellent.

From the conservative Catholics of Tradition, Family and Property:

During the 1968 Tet Offensive, then Captain Gordon Batcheller earned the Navy Cross when his unit, Company A, 1st Battalion Marines, engaged a numerically superior force of the North Vietnamese Army. Although injured by shrapnel, he aggressively led his men in a fierce assault against the enemy and was seriously wounded in both legs when the column began receiving heavy fire from both flanks. He supported himself with his elbows, resolutely continued to direct his men, and bravely encouraged those near him even as he lay receiving medical treatment. As a result of his determined efforts, the reaction force reached the embattled city of Hue.

Colonel Batcheller joined the Marine Corps in 1960 and retired in 1991. His assignments included rifle platoon commander, 81mm mortar platoon commander, rifle company executive officer, rifle company commander, landing support battalion commander, and infantry battalion commander. He is a National War College graduate, and was a professor of military and strategic studies for seven years at the Army Management Staff College.

Women in Combat: Why We Should Not Send Our Mothers, Wives and Daughters to Fight Our Wars

Crusade Magazine: Do you think that the current operational effectiveness of our military is lacking because we refuse to allow women in combat?

Colonel Gordon Batcheller: For the last forty years we have deliberately increased the involvement of women in combat. They fly combat airplanes and helicopters, man navy ships, including nuclear submarines, and fill combat support and service positions that expose them to close combat. Just recently 14,000 positions in the combat zone were opened to women. Civilians are pressuring the military, primarily the Army and Marine Corps, to open the infantry and other combat arms positions to women.

The process started when the All Volunteer Force discovered it wasn’t getting enough men; rudely put, women weren’t better than men, but they were better than nothing, at least when restricted to assignments where their associated friction could be best managed. As their presence increased, so did substantial evidence of the difficulties the mix created. No one has sought more women to better the combat force or claimed that our current mixed force is more effective than an all male force would be; and no historian has held that a coed force would have fought any of our wars more effectively than they were fought. If women improved the force’s combat effectiveness, you would expect the military to pressure its civilian master to give it more women without restrictions. The pressure today is in the other direction; civilians are trying to impose a less effective force on the military.

Crusade: Would allowing women in combat positions lead to the loss of combat effectiveness? If so why and how?

Colonel Batcheller: Yes! I guess the basic reason is that women are not equal substitutes for men. They are different, and this causes a host of problems. It is not their “fault,” nor is it attributable to any inherent incompetence. Women are different, and men view and treat them as such. Our cultural values, distilled from our Judeo-Christian civilization affirm this truth and inform us on what is appropriate or acceptable.

Effectiveness in combat depends on trained individuals, bound by trust and confidence — a belief ultimately that we will do right by each other. I have never known any man who thought it right to expose women to the butchery he will accept for himself or his male colleagues. Our idea of manhood would hold such butchery as shameful. Shame is not an inspiring war-winning emotion.

The infantry lives and works in a violent, barbaric world where the most grotesque of Hollywood’s special effects is routine reality. There is no quality of life beyond staying alive: no comfort, no privacy, and no provisions for hygiene. Endurance — both physical and emotional — and raw strength are essential. The battlefield is a man’s world.

Crusade: Should we want our women to fight? Why not?

Colonel Batcheller: The values of our major religions, Western Civilization, and our culture say “no.” The values that sustain our military say “no.” Our idea of manhood says it would be shameful. The thought of sending wives, mothers, and daughters to fight our wars while their men drive the children to soccer practice is contemptible. It is not that women cannot fight and kill and help us repel an attack or invasion in a “last stand.” But our culture objects to enlisting them in a “first call” case, and operational effectiveness resists their involvement in any case. Ideally, the military would be a male operation. In our world the challenge is to find a sensible, cost-effective use of women in the military while keeping them where they would not have to fight, or be able to distract or disrupt those fighting.

Crusade: Back in 1993, surveys showed that an overwhelming majority of women said they did not want to be in a combat unit. Is there a purpose for women to be placed in infantry positions?
The military is created and structured to win wars, and its personnel policies are crafted to serve that end, not satisfy vocational whims.

Colonel Batcheller: Not on the basis of military merit. Militant feminists and diversity worshipers have their fatuous “purposes,” but no positive purpose motivates the military to put women in foxholes.

While some seek to radically change the United States by destroying our current values, others seek to weaken the military and humble our nation. One does not have to be a conspiracy nut to acknowledge that such people exist and are active, and that this destructive initiative fits their purposes.

Some advocates also insist it is a woman’s right to serve in the military if she wants. That, of course, is nonsense. The military is created and structured to win wars, and its personnel policies are crafted to serve that end, not satisfy vocational whims.

Crusade: Some claim women push for infantry positions because they want to achieve higher rank and advance their careers. Is this being forced on women or is it something they want?

Colonel Batcheller: It is fair to say that achieving high rank is dependent on having had the “right” jobs, and having done them well. Command assignments of combat units during combat are essential for professional credibility.

A female Marine communicator is not going to become commandant. But the military exists to win wars, not to provide successful career patterns. Personnel policies, and their derivative assignments, are for the good of the service, not the happiness of the individuals being assigned.

Crusade: Do mixed units favor the enemy when it comes to combat?

Colonel Batcheller: Yes. By weakening our side we help the enemies. You will hear of the success other countries have had with coed forces, with Israel usually mentioned as the ultimate proof. But it is my understanding that the Israelis have found the concept doesn’t work and have abandoned it. The male soldiers became too concerned, protective and distracted. Women help defend their kibbutz just like American women helped defend their wagon train or homestead; and they serve in the military, but not in coed combat formations.

Crusade: People have made this issue one about gender equality. How would you answer those who subscribe to this ideological egalitarianism?

Colonel Batcheller: Men and women may be equal in the Declaration of Independence, but how many women play in the National Football League? College football? High School football? Last time I looked, men and women are different. And even if the differences created no performance advantages, the inescapable sexual dynamics inflict seriously disruptive forces on our coed organizations. The military exists to win wars, not to serve as an equal opportunity employer.

Crusade: Could you comment on the physical requirements of combat and are women capable of enduring it?

Colonel Batcheller: My experience was as an infantryman. Our world was somewhat different than that of a tank crewman or artillery officer. We had to be half beast of burden and operate far off the beaten track and beyond reach of reliable mechanical support. Conditions were primitive, quality of life non-existent, exposure to the elements constant. What we had, we pretty much carried. Coverage of the wars of the last ten years has provided a good picture of the loads carried by individual soldiers during operations — loads increase when units have to relocate. Upper body strength and load-carrying ability are essential — the stronger and more enduring, the more valuable. We have never been able to reduce the individual soldier’s personal load — it frequently exceeds 75 pounds, before you add a wounded colleague. Women in such an environment quickly become liabilities. Nor would they function well in the miserable living conditions, lack of privacy, absence of hygiene and so forth. It’s a man’s world.

Crusade: Are there emotional issues that need to be addressed?

Colonel Batcheller: There would be emotional issues for both sexes, and for the nation as a whole. This is something alien to our national character and hostile to our concept of civilization. The butchery of our wives and daughters and mothers would generate a national mood of sadness and shame. There has been no coverage of the killed and disabled women in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as we “celebrate” the male wounded warriors. We’re proud of our fighting forces, but ashamed that they include women. Infantrymen would feel this shame tenfold — they can handle the butchery until it involves someone that reminds them of their kid sister.
Jessica Lynch rescued from enemy captors in Iraq
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. Army Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch was captured by enemy forces and raped repeatedly.

Crusade: What should we expect from the enemy should a woman combatant fall into their hands?

Colonel Batcheller: History has answered this question. Human nature hasn’t changed. Our enemies seldom start with our basic values, and combat is corrosive and de-humanizing. But, if we’re comfortable ordering our women and girls into the explosive violence of the battlefield, why should we be upset if they are violated?

Crusade: Based on your experience, do you think our young servicemen could, over time, be trained to treat women troops the same as men?

Colonel Batcheller: No. Nor would women accept being treated as men. This issue becomes especially significant in leader/led relationships. Most men have serious problems subordinating to women in a neutral environment. This would only get worse in a masculine environment. Thinking we can eliminate or tame sex reflects colossal arrogance, or stupidity.

Crusade: Because this is such a politically charged issue, do you think some are afraid to express their honest opinion? If so, do you feel that this limits our ability to make the best choice for our national security?

Colonel Batcheller: Yes. The military is properly subordinate to civilian authorities. The Commander-in-Chief is the President, the rule writers and check payers are Congress. Most of us have trouble “taking on the boss.” In the military there are additional concerns about disloyalty, disobedience, and insubordination. Additionally, the “pyramids” of these organizations are manned by ambitious individuals who generally want to keep their careers alive. Candor and honesty are dangerous, sometimes fatal. We have had four-star officers — generals and admirals, active duty and retired — publicly support the admission of homosexuals into the military, and the assignment of women into combat roles. None argued from military merit or advantage; it was the politically advantageous thing to do. Washington is a corrosive, disorienting environment. The major “players” are politicians, even if they wear a uniform. Very few leave Washington with more virtue than they brought in. Some go over to the dark side, most find reasons to justify not being contentious, or accept unsound policies after token opposition. Given the ignorance Congress and the President demonstrate about military matters, we should expect to observe respectful resistance from our military “leaders” with public examination of the objects of disagreement. For a host of reasons, we don’t. National security suffers as it ultimately depends upon an educated citizenry. Don’t believe anyone that says this is not a serious morale problem.

There is another major concern that is widespread, but difficult to isolate. Producing combat units — companies and battalions and squadrons and such — is a complex undertaking, and the primary business of the military. In the face of complexity the sacred tenet of KISS — Keep It Simple Stupid — is frequently invoked. Adding women to the mix creates frictions and burdens not only in the units where they mix, but in service-wide areas of personnel management, logistics, facilities, and administration; the more pervasive the mix, the more extensive the costs. All the Service academies have experienced sex-based scandals, and all services have been plagued with such misconduct, both in operational units and the support establishment. The cumulative cost of our coed military in time and effort is beyond calculation, but considerable.


Support KeyWiki: How You can Help Expose America’s Enemies Within

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Established in 2009, our sister website, KeyWiki, has grown into one of the most extensive databases detailing left wing groups and individuals within the US.

KeyWiki has received more than 24,000,000 page views so far. Thousands of our pages, including those for Congress members such as Danny K Davis, Barbara Lee, John Conyers and Jan Schakowsky are very highly ranked on Google. Many of our pages, such as those for Barack Obama, Democratic Socialists of America and George Soros, have been viewed well over 100,000 times. KeyWiki is full of unique information, painstakingly gathered from archives all over the United States.

KeyWiki is regularly accessed by researchers, including those from the Glenn Beck organization and David Horowitz’s excellent Discover The Networks website.

The US accounts for 86.92% of all visits to the site.

KeyWiki now needs your help!

After surviving for three years on a shoestring, KeyWiki is not only ready, but needs to go to the next level. The aim is to quadruple KeyWiki’s content before the end of 2013. We believe that by doing this, we can help to positively impact the 2014 US elections and those further down the track.

How can you assist with this vital project? We are launching an appeal to raise US $250,000 by the end of 2013.

These funds will be used to:

  • Employ skilled researchers and fund associated travel costs to complete specific research in untapped archives in Chicago, Washington DC, Madison, Wisconsin, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Detroit and other centers.
  • Employ data entry operators to input the tens of thousands of pages of information already gathered.
  • Professionally redesign the KeyWiki site to achieve maximum effectiveness, functionality and ease of use.
  • Fund secure hosting and associated administration costs. KeyWiki is deliberately hosted in New Zealand to increase its integrity and security. This involves current ongoing costs that must be met each month.
  • To assist with the training of additional voluntary KeyWiki contributors to the high standard of accuracy and referencing that is required.

America is a fast declining power. This is because most Americans have no concept of the enemy within. KeyWiki’s purpose is to help change that situation and expose the insidious, often well hidden links between individuals/groups whose ultimate goal is the destruction and downfall of your great republic. If America falls, so does freedom everywhere and the Western way of life as we know it.

Please help reverse this disastrous trend. Contribute today.

Trevor Loudon

Editor: KeyWiki
Editor: trevorloudon.com
Author: Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

Please go here to contribute on this post or to the right hand side of the New Zeal blog.