Oct 8, 2013 Military
A 20 year old soldier named Tevin Geike was stabbed to death near Joint Base Lewis-McCord in Washington early Saturday morning. Geike, a white man, was walking with two other white soldiers when a car with five black men drove by and yelled something racist at the three.
One of the three yelled something about this being how combat veterans were treated. The car turned around and the occupants got out and surrounded the three. A verbal confrontation started but when the driver of the vehicle realized that the three were veterans he called his friends off. One of them appeared to have bumped into Geike and then they all got in the car and sped away.
Geike was on the ground bleeding badly from stab wounds. He died at the scene waiting for an ambulance.
The man who stabbed him is a coward and should get the death penalty for what he did.
We need justice for Tevin.
Fortunately, it looks like we might get justice. The UK Daily Mail reports that three men have been arrested for the murder and two more are being sought. The three arrested are soldiers from the same base as Geike. The Daily Mail reports they served in the same unit as Geike. That could just mean they served in the same Division and likely did not know each other.
In any event, 23 year old Jeremiah Hill, the alleged murderer, is in custody along with Cedarium Johnson and Ajoni Runnion-Bareford.
These fellows are in a world of trouble because the military still has the death penalty.
I do not know if they will seek that penalty but even the possibility of life in a federal prison is not a good prospect for such young people.
The interesting thing is that this is not being called a hate crime. Five black men used a racial slur toward three white men and then one of those black men stabbed a white man to death. How is that not a hate crime?
Don’t get me wrong, I think the whole concept of hate crimes is ridiculous for many reasons among them the concept of punishing what a person might have been thinking or that his motivation is believed to be hate. All violent crimes are rooted in one form of hatred or another.
But since this society has determined that hate crime is a valid crime to punish people for and since this society goes out of its way to ensure whites are punished for racially motivated hate crimes when blacks are victims it is only fair we apply the same standards.
I know that Eric Holder and his Just Us Department is not in line with equal prosecution and that he racially discriminates against white people but I also know the military will be handling this case.
And the military does not really care what Holder thinks.
Still, the Army is not likely to go after it as a hate crime since it already has the mechanisms in place to put these animals to death or place them in cages for the rest of their lives.
It is bad enough that they murdered someone but it is worse that they knowingly murdered a brother in arms.
If Obama had another son (besides Trayvon) he would look like the murderer.
If Mitt Romney had another son he would look like Geike.
Rest in peace young soldier. If justice is served your attackers will be in hell before too long.
Whether that hell is in a prison or in the afterlife is yet to be determined…
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 20, 2013 Military
Back in March a US pilot flying an F-22 Raptor, and doing his best Maverick impersonation, scared an Iranian pilot flying an F-4.
The Iranian F-4 was flying near a US drone flying in international airspace on what appears to be an intercept mission. The US pilot flew under the Iranian to check out the weapons load of the F-4. This was done without the Iranian knowing the Raptor was there.
After the weapons check the Raptor emerged off the left wing of the Iranian F-4 and radioed to the pilot.
“You really ought to go home.”
I would love to have seen the look on the Iranian’s face as that aircraft appeared from seemingly nowhere. It had to be priceless and I bet that guy was ready to fill his pants.
I am reminded of a scene from the movie Star Trek: The Voyage Home where the crew of the Enterprise (ironically flying a cloaked Klingon Bird of Prey) puts the spaceship between whales and a whaling vessel just as the harpoon launches. The harpoon bounces off the cloaked ship which baffles the crew of the whaling vessel.
The Bird of Prey uncloaks and the whaling vessel’s crew goes into full panic trying to get out of there.
I imagine that Iranian felt much like that whaling crew when the US Raptor appeared out of nowhere.
The Iranians like to scream about how many of us they will kill if they are attacked or if we bother them in some way. While I don’t think we should be attacking them without cause I do think they might want to rethink their strategy.
I can’t imagine there are too many aircraft in their air force. If they were forced into battle they would lose them pretty quickly.
Hats off to the US Air Force!!
And a change of pants for the Iranian.
Never surrender, never submit.
Some entity in Syria used the nerve agent Sarin in the ongoing civil war. The United States claims that the government used the nerve agent and the UN says the rebels used it. The US report on the issue is full of caveats including one that we do not have assets on the ground. There is even some doubt as to whether Sarin was used or if chlorine was the gas that killed all those people (some report smelling chlorine). The Obama regime wants to attack Syria as a punishment for using the chemical weapons.
Is our military supposed to be used to punish other nations?
Regardless of the reason for the use of force the US Congress is the body given the power to authorize the use of force. There is a law (50 USC Chapter 33, ss 1541) called the War Powers Resolution. The purpose of this was to give presidents the ability to respond to an emergency requiring military force when the response was needed before Congress could act to authorize it. There are three items listed that allow the use of force and they are:
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
There has been no declaration of war and there is no statutory authorization (such as a treaty or UN Resolution), and there is no national emergency created by an attack upon our country, its territories or possessions or our armed forces.
Given these facts there is no authority for the use of force under the War Powers Act. Barack Obama and his sock puppet John Kerry claim Obama has the authority but he clearly does not.
The US Congress must authorize the use of force and that is being debated at this time. Keep in mind during the debates that saving face for an American president is NOT one of the reasons that use of force is allowed.
The UN is unlikely to authorize the use of force as that body contends the rebels used the nerve agent and given that Russia has a veto vote and is a strong supporter of the Syrian government they will likely veto. This leaves it to the US Congress (unless, of course, Obama decides to strike no matter what) to allow or disallow the use of force. That body should think long and hard before it commits the use of our nation’s military and it should look at what threat is posed by the use of chemical weapons in Syria as well as the likely ramifications of the use of force.
If we attack Syria what will happen? Syria and Iran will attack Israel as punishment for the attack. We will condemn such acts but is their use of force for punishment any worse than ours?
The attacks on Israel will draw a huge military response form that nation and many other countries will be drawn into the conflict. World War Three will begin.
What happens if we attack Syria and hit the chemical weapons storage sites and those agents end up killing untold numbers of people? We claim we will not attack the storage sites but how do we know where they are and what is to say that Assad (or the Rebels) will not move the agents to places we are likely to hit in order to have such a release? How will we be viewed if our acts cause death by chemical agent?
What happens if we attack the Syrian Government and it turns out the Rebels used the nerve agents? If Obama thinks he needs to save face now what will he do if he attacks and was wrong all along? There will be no face saving measure in the world if he attacks and is wrong about it.
As far as I am concerned the nerve agent attacks in Syria took place in a civil war and their use did not affect us in any way whatsoever. Our property, our nation and our people were NOT attacked so there is no reason to shoot at anyone involved in that conflict.
If we decide to use force against the Syrian Government we will be helping al Qaeda (the Rebels) and these people are our enemy. These Rebels have been filmed murdering children at a firing squad and cutting out the heart and liver of a soldier and eating them. Are these the people we want to help?
Why in the name of all that is good would we want to help either side in this conflict? Both sides have animals in them but right now those animals are fighting each other. We should sit back and watch the fight and not get involved unless we are attacked.
Obama is foolish and inexperienced. It was his mouth that backed him into this corner and that is his problem. We should not use our military to help him save face.
We will end up looking like fools.
Any member of Congress on the left who screamed all those years about Bush lying to get us into war should remember all the things they said about Iraq not attacking us before they vote on Syria. Obama should remember he said he would not have voted to authorize force (yes Bush went to Congress and got approval regardless of what anyone thinks of the reasons) and John Kerry should remember what he said about Vietnam not posing any threat to the US when he was an anti war protestor oh so many years ago.
Republicans, you better sack up or you will face backlash on election day.
As for Democrats, who knows what they will face. Their party has mind numbed drones with short memories who follow the collective.
Say no to attacking Syria…
Never surrender, never submit.
There is a lot of uproar right now about sexual assaults in the military. This has gotten the attention of members of Congress and the top brass of the military. Unfortunately, the response is the same as it has been for the past two or three decades.
The response is to have well publicized hearings where people are degraded and then promises are made that it will improve. This has happened in every major case since at least the Tailhook case. They always promise to improve. They always promise that they will get on it and make it better. They make the promises and put into place a bunch of nonsense and feel good measures.
But things never really change. This time there are stand down days and mandatory training directed at all workers, civilian and military, the huge majority of whom are not and have never been involved in a sexual assault.
The solution to the problem is to hold those who engage in such behavior accountable. Therein lies the rub. You see, in today’s society we lack responsibility and we lack accountability. This comes from the president on down as evidenced by his constant blaming of everyone else (particularly George Bush). The other side of the coin is that no one holds him (the Limbaugh Theorem) or any other officials accountable.
People need to act responsibly and when they don’t they need to be held accountable. Society has abandoned this idea. When a shooter murders a bunch of people we do not hold that person accountable. We blame guns and then punish the millions of gun owners who had nothing to do with the crime.
In these sexual assault cases in the military we blame the environment and then preach to those who have not done anything wrong.
Hold those who are found guilty of sexual assault accountable by punishing them. In addition, if someone makes a false claim and that is found out the person making the false claim should receive the punishment the accused would have gotten had he actually committed the crime.
There are other ideas that are directed at solving the problem but they are moronic at best. Deebow at Blackfive explores one such solution and puts it much better than I could hope to.
Sexual assault in the military is a betrayal of trust. The person assaulted has placed trust in another member of the military and that trust is betrayed by a person to whom an allegiance has been formed. It is a violation of the very core and foundation of teamwork and it is despicable.
Members of the military are a very select subset of the population. They are people who have vowed to put their lives on the line to preserve our country and our way of life. The training in the military brings these very unique people together and teaches them to put others and their nation above themselves. We place our lives in each other’s hands and we expect that our backs will always be protected.
When someone in the military is sexually assaulted by another service member that sacred bond, that trust, has been violated and is more painful and more damaging than an attack by our enemies. We would not stand for an enemy attack on our service members and we work hard to prevent such things. Why would any member of our armed forces attack another member this way?
Right now there is a case going on at the Naval Academy where three members of the football team are accused of sexually assaulting a female midshipman who got drunk at a party. It appears as if she was punished (for getting drunk) while they were allowed to remain on the team. The spotlight on the incident seems to have sparked the current investigation.
If these men raped this woman then they should go to jail for a very long time. It does not matter how drunk she was because that is not and never will be justification for what they allegedly did. If she violated some rule by drinking or getting drunk then the Academy can deal with that separately. But when she was drunk her comrades let her down. That was when she was most vulnerable and that is when they should have protected her. They should have ensured she got home safely.
If what they are accused of is true then they turned their backs on a fellow midshipman and let her down. They did not have her back and they violated the trust she had in them as comrades in arms.
It is criminal that they very people she trusted caused her harm. In the military we are a family and we are supposed to protect each other.
These men are accused of doing something to her that they would never allow to happen to their sisters.
Anyone who does this is a cretin and is unfit to wear the uniform of this nation.
We are better than that my brothers and sisters in arms and if you don’t feel that way then it is time for you to pack your stuff and GTFO.
Never surrender, never submit.
The sequestration is a bogeyman that the Democrats are trying to use to blame Republicans for everything that happens. The fact that Obama came up with the idea is not part of their thinking process because they are interested in blaming everything on the right. They have hopes that they can pin this on Republicans and that it will help them keep the Senate and take the House back.
The idea that Sequester is debilitating is moronic. The cuts amount to 2 cents of every dollar. That is not much money and any pain felt is because Democrats have specifically made cuts to areas that would cause harm. They can shut down White House tours while still allowing million dollar donors to show up. They can allow TSA to furlough employees to harm the public because it is the only way. Of course another solution was found as soon as some member of Congress was inconvenienced by the travel delays.
These facts have not stopped Democrats from using sequester as their talking point. One Democrat blamed sequester for the events in Benghazi when sequester took place after the murders there. As an aside, the alleged cut in money for security is a smoke screen. We had money to put electric car charging stations but not for security? Get real.
Nancy Pelosi is the latest Democrat to blame the sequester for something. It seems that San Fran Nan is blaming the sequester for the fact that she did not take a delegation to Iraq or Afghanistan to thank mothers and grandmothers for serving in the military:
“Every year for the past few years on Mother’s Day I’ve taken a delegation to Afghanistan – or Iraq – to say thank you to our moms – and by the way, our grandmothers – who are serving there – to also thank all of our troops for what they do to protect America’s families. I won’t be going this particular weekend because we don’t have – you know, under sequestration – we don’t have (inaudible).” IJ Review
I don’t know how much money it costs to take a delegation to Iraq or Afghanistan but it is not cheap and we don’t have money to begin with. I also do not know why Pelosi thinks it is necessary to fly around the world to say thank you to mothers and grandmothers. It would be much easier and far less expensive for her to put out a thank you on her website and then have Defense notify the troops it is there through their systems. She can’t possibly visit every mother and grandmother in these countries so the message sent electronically would at least make it to as many as she would have visited.
It sounds to me like Nan just wants and excuse for a trip. I know these places are not garden spots but think of how many places she can visit on the way out and the way back, I mean since they are already in the neighborhood.
Pelosi makes this statement as if it is a bad thing that she could not go and seems to think blaming it on sequester will hurt Republicans.
First of all, I venture to bet that most of the military do not want to see her or visit with her. She is a liberal moron who does not support the troops.
Second of all, if she could not waste money on this trip because of the sequester then I say it is doing what it is supposed to.
However, I will buy her a one way ticket if they promise to keep her there.
Never surrender, never submit.