Vote in Our Poll: The Greatest General in History

Don't forget to comment and to bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Petraeus 2016?

General Petraeus has been a topic of discussion in the news as of late, due to him being appointed by President Obama to further lead our Troops into Afghanistan, after General McChrystal's interview with Rolling Stone led to him being fired earlier this week.

Conservatives, Centrists, and (some) Liberals alike are pleased as punch with this appointment, as General Petraeus has a successful record of combating our Islamic-Terrorists enemies abroad and in the Middle East (especially), and he's a man who will demand results if necessary.

But what impact, if any, will this appointment have on the General and a perspective future run for the White House - if he ever felt the desire to further serve his Nation, and thus decided to pursue the Republican Nomination?

One: Petraeus 2012 is 100% officially out of the question. Petraeus is an honorable man, and I do not believe we'll see him return to American shorelines until we achieve victory in the Afghan theater. Period.

Two: If the General can once again lead our Troops into uncertain battlefield conditions, and he can once again lead our Nation in another comeback-from-behind Military victory, I can almost guarantee Petraeus will enjoy Dwight Eisenhower levels of praise.

Three: Unless the Republican base is 100% united for our eventual Nominee against President Barack Obama (seemingly more and more improbable) in 2012, we will not win. So when the GOP selects a Nominee in 2016, after a fractured process in 2012, who better to unite the GOP than the General we all respect.

If the above mentioned circumstances take place, General David Petraeus could very well be the Republican Party's 2016 Presidential Nominee; just as Dwight Eisenhower was in 1952 against a Illinois socialist (only this time a Republican General would be replacing an Illinois socialist who happens to be President).

What say you?

Consider advertising on our site!

5 Republicans support the repeal of DADT.

It pains me to write this, but 5 Republican Representatives voted for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" last night; against the will of the United States Military, the Chiefs of all four Military branches, and common sense. It's not just the fact that our Military's opinion was thrown right out the window, but that this repeal will go into effect, even if the Department of Defense rules the change "hostile" to troop morale and cohesion.

While 26 Congressional Democrats sided with the overwhelming Republican opposition, the measure still passed with general ease; once again over the objections of the United States Military. Those 26 Congressional Democrats deserve some recognition for standing with our Military, but those 5 Republicans who sided against our United States Military for either political or personal reasons, should be ashamed of themselves:

Congressman Cao (LA 02).

Congressman Djou (HA 01).

Congresswoman Biggert (IL 13).

Congressman Paul (TX 14).

Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen (FL 18)

Representatives Cao, Djou, and Biggert do reside in "blue districts", and their vote (atleast Cao and Djou) would probably be different if their congressional district was located in Southern Kansas or Northern Oklahoma, but Congressman Paul just doesn't care about troop morale or cohesion, and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, even though she is a fierce Conservative legislator, favors the "gay agenda", regardless of political or realistic circumstance.

Than again opposing the United States Military for political reason is worse than supporting legislation that provides personal wealth. Look at Congressman Castle of Delaware; he's running for United States Senate in one of the deepest blue states in America, and even though a vote like this could be used against him in November, he still stood with the Military; that's real courage.

I hope Senate Republicans (40 of whom oppose repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell) with the help of Senator Webb (D-Virginia), can filibuster Democratic attempts to "social engineer" our United States Military, and to hopefully force our Congress, and the President, to await the much anticipated Department of Defense survey of over 350,000 American soldiers (due out in December), and their valued opinions on what such change of policy would have on them.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Military man defeated in Idaho Primary.

It's true that Vaughn Ward stumbled towards the end of a long-hard fought Primary, which Raul Labrador (Republicans can't win the Hispanic vote?) won with close to 50% of the vote. But this is not just another loss for the Establishment GOP (Ward's a lifelong soldier, Labrador is a State legislator, how is Ward the Establishment?), it's another loss for the Military candidate.

In the year of the Tea Party: Veterans, Military men, and those who support National Defense have been targeted across the Nation, and a good number have been defeated. Senator Bennett was shoved out in Utah, Trey Grayson was defeated in Kentucky, Vaughn Ward was ambushed in Idaho, and Isolationists have won across the political spectrum.

I'm not accusing Raul Labrador of being against the United States Military, our Wars or other National Defense related issues, but his record of accomplishment doesn't come within a dozen miles of Vaughn Ward. Ward is a United States Marine who served his Nation for over a decade - whether it be regular duty overseas, joining the CIA or fighting in Afghanistan.

The Halls of Congress would have been better off with Vaughn Ward; a real American hero and Patriot. It's a shame the Republican voters of Idaho's 1st congressional district disagreed. But, I wouldn't want it any other way than the Republican voters deciding in the ballot boxes.

On a sidenote: 81,220 Republicans voted in yesterday's Primary election. That's about 45% of all Republican votes received in 2008; our base is energized, our movement is ready, and we should be able to recapture this Conservative district once and for all in November. As long as the "Tea Partiers" don't screw things up.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

VOTE: Should "Don't Ask Don't Tell" be repealed?

Please vote in our included poll and leave a comment.

I'm not going to write much on the subject of Don't Ask Don't Tell, but I will add this; The United States Military does not support the repeal, morale will fall across the board, and some potential recruits who fear being sodomized-in-the-showers, probably won't enlist. Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is a horrific idea, and it will only hurt our Military.

What say you?

Bookmark our site!



Consider advertising on our site!

Obama Won't Be Photographed With F-22

President Obama apparently too cool to be photographed with the F-22 Raptor. Earlier this year, under Obama's approval, the Defense Department killed the F-22 program.

Let's find some things out about this awesome plane:

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
• Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
• Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
• Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)
• Airfoil: NACA 64A?05.92 root, NACA 64A?04.29 tip
• Empty weight: 43,430 lb (19,700 kg^[3][175])
• Loaded weight: 64,460 lb (29,300 kg^[176])
• Max takeoff weight: 83,500 lb (38,000 kg)
• Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 Pitch Thrust vectoring turbofans, 35,000+ lb (156+ kN) each
• Fuel capacity: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally,^[3][175] or 26,000 lb (11,900 kg) with two external fuel tanks^[3][175]

Performance

• Maximum speed:
  
  • At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)^[83]
  • Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,963 km/h)^[83]
• Range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
• Combat radius: 410 nmi^[174] (471 mi, 759 km)
• Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)
• Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,812 m)
• Wing loading: 77 lb/ft² (375 kg/m²)
• Thrust/weight: 1.08 (1.26 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
• Maximum g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g^[83]

Armament

• Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing root, 480 rounds
• Air to air loadout:
  • 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
  • 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
• Air to ground loadout:
  • 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
  • 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder for self-protection, and one of the following:
    • 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
    • 2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
    • 8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs
• Hardpoints: 4× under-wing pylon stations can be fitted to carry 600 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks or weapons, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg).^[177][178]

Avionics

• RWR (Radar warning receiver): 250 nmi (463 km) or more^[92]
• Radar: 125-150 miles (200-240 km) against 1 m² (11 sq ft) targets (estimated range)^[90]

Why would you kill this program!?

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

PS3s Have Finally Found Their Market

Despite their high prices and lackluster sales, it appears that following a new round of funny commercials, the Playstation 3 has finally found its niche in the new video game market.

Yes, they're being used by the US military to compute Linux operations like no ordinary computer can. And this comes even after it appears that one of the main computing chips may be soon out of date.

Details of how the PS3's will be deployed specifically have not be revealed aside from the fact the system willl be used to “determine what software and hardware technologies are implemented [in] military systems”, reports state.

Maybe the XBox will help Iranian nuclear scientists next.

H/T: TGOH.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Obama to Sell B-2 Bomber Blueprints to China to Pay Off Debt

B-2 Plans for Sale?
Richard Hogarty
Boston Reviewer
June 1, 2009


Record deficits and a crashing economy appear to be taking a toll on the young Barack Obama Administration. The Administration has been talking about hiking income taxes and perhaps instituting a VAT tax.

China is also concerned with the mounting deficits in the United States budget. China is the single biggest holder of US Treasury Bonds and is one of Washington's biggest trading partners. The People's Republic has had a burgeoning economy, but is increasingly wary of the falling US dollar.

While the exact amount of Chinese ownership of US treasuries is unknown, it is estimated to add up to over a trillion dollars. If China were to call in US guarantees on these bonds, economists fear it could lead to an economic collapse larger than the Great Depression.

China has recently expanded its defense budget, ostensibly to keep up with its economic growth. China is reportedly working on its own version of a stealth bomber (the US has the only functioning model) but is lagged by technological defects.

On April 1st, President Obama spoke to Chinese Premier Hu Jintao during the G20 Summit. During this meeting, Mr. Hu expressed interest in writing off some of the US debt in exchange for military technology. The President has since referred the matter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Defense Department is reportedly furious with the President's proposal to sell blueprints of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to the People's Republic. Gates has flatly rejected the President's plan, but has since been asked to step down if he will not facilitate the process.

According to the deal, the United States would sell the plans for the B-2, along with radar-absorbing paints and metals in exchange for $50 billion in debt relief. The B-2 cost the US government $23 billion to develop the bomber in the 1980s.

According to the Administration, this proposal will help the United States resolve its debt issues. They point out their belief that the B-2 bomber is "strategically obsolete", according to a source in the White House Press Office. In addition, the source claims that the Chinese would be unable to create their own functioning stealth bomber fleet for "at least eight years."

American allies Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are very wary of the proposal. Koo Syi, a geopolitical analyst from South Korea, points out that this technology could be passed to China's allies. This was the case when Chinese nuclear technology was transferred to Pakistan and North Korea. According to Koo, Obama has rendered US allies' opinions as "irrelevant."

While this proposal is controversial, it is not being presented to Congress, where it could meet with stern opposition. Instead, the State Department has been informed to assist the Defense Department with the transfer of materials.

Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Will Obama Send Troops to Mexican Border?

It's beginning to creep into the news. Violence is in the rise in Mexico and drug cartels are battling the central government. Drugs are still pouring into the country, and cross-border killings are not ceasing.

And so, what will our government do about it? We've increased our border patrol along the Rio Grande and have sent some National Guard troops, as well. However, the plans for the southern border fence have been scrapped and we're still at a loss about what to do.

And now our own reports call Mexico close to a "failed state." Mexico's government has sent troops into violent areas, only to see the attacks continue. Beheaded bodies are found frequently and local officials are corrupt.

What President Obama can do:

* Deploy up to 50,000 additional border patrol and National Guard troops along the border in order to stem the flow of illegal drugs and aliens.

* Ask Congress to complete the southern border fence, reaching from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico.

* Sell the Mexican military our excess or outdated recon planes, armored personnel carriers, and perhaps some modern UAVs to patrol their troubled areas.

* Deploy UAVs along the border, linked to local military and border patrol stations.

* Ask Colombia to send some anti-terrorism experts to Mexico in order to stop the cartels and stem the drug trade.

* Announce the establishment of military tribunals for non-citizen drug cartel leaders suspected of murder in the United States.

* Announce restrictions on Mexican goods if additional drugs are brought into the country.

Whether the new President will do this is another thing. However, any actions he takes should consider the integrity of our borders and attempt to work with the Mexican government against these agitators.

Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

NOT Satire: Obama Says Most Troops to Be Back From Iraq Within One Year

Well, this actually is NOT a satire piece, but I think in about a year, it may be remembered as one. President Obama is now saying that the majority of United States troops in Iraq will return home within a year.

Call me skeptical, but Joe Biden said that if the US government wanted to evacuate all U.S. troops, it would take a year. That's if we pulled up the stakes tomorrow and dashed for the exits. Unfortunately, I believe that the President is attempting to tell voters what they want to hear. With successful elections in Iraq (thanks to George Bush), now the American people are looking to end engagement in that country.

My prediction (and there's a 2/3 chance I'm wrong): within a year, there will be 80,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Today's total: 140,000. Less than half as of 2/2/2010. And hopefully even this smaller withdrawal will not lead to more violence.

Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution

Conservative News and Reporting
"News for the Rest of Us"
Michele Chang

NOTE: This article is, in fact, a satire piece. While you're here, read other articles, like Obama going on the quarter, how he's genetically superior, and how he took down Blago. And you can also check out Joe's Babe of the Week, which comes out every Friday. And become a fan and return and tell your friends. Word up.

For those who like this satire, buy my book, The Real History of World War II.

NOTE: This article did not appear in, or was sanctioned in any way by the National Law Journal.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.

A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.

"The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself." the spokesman said, "At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution."

The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes too far.

"Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes official policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass."

Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.

"The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."

"We expect a lot of flak over this," the classified memo continues. "But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control."

The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.

Military Lasers Totally Awesome

The terrorists should be scared. Now we're starting to use lasers.

The Laser Avenger is an infrared laser with power levels somewhere in the tens of kilowatts range mounted on a Humvee off-road vehicle. It is designed to take down the smaller variety of UAV, which are hardest for conventional air-defence weapons to target.

The power of its laser has been doubled since 2007, when it was shown off destroying a stationary improvised bomb. Now it has tracked three small UAVs – the exact model has not been given – and shot one of them down. The laser tracks an object and holds fire until the target is close enough for it to cause burning with a single blast.

Late last year, an airborne laser carried by a modified 747 destroyed its first target, albeit from the ground, using an IR laser in the megawatt range.

Neat!

Who Should be Obama's Secretary of Defense

There's been a lot of talk about who Barack Obama will choose to become his next Secretary of State. It may be a good idea for him to concentrate on his Secretary of Defense, too. Obama has talked about bipartisanship a great deal during the campaign, so this is his chance to demonstrate it.

Robert Gates has been a non-partisan, steady hand at the Pentagon since the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. He has overseen the surge strategy that is decimating al Qaeda in Iraq and has been a very pragmatic secretary.

There are other candidates for the job, to be sure. However, it is up to Obama to blend both competency and bipartisanship. If Gates or someone similar is not named, then Obama's campaign promises are nil.