And what point does it make: Dispersed through out was the subliminal message; Jones supports partial birth a******n and Moore does not? The point they are trying to make is that a p*******e is not as bad as someone who supports a******n, though, ironically, a p*******e is exactly the type of person who would make a******n necessary. The American Thinker is a oxymoron of a rag that, here, is using false equivalency as a tool to manipulate those too fragile to think for themselves. Moore's form of perversion doesn't make the swamp cleaner but is the exact type of action that makes the swamp the swamp. As far as supporting a******n, that is simply the support for a woman's rights to control her own body and stripping a woman of her rights simply because she is a woman--well, again, that is the type of perverse action that makes Washington's swamp the swampy mess that it is.

The type of people we want in Washington are those who are going to stand up for everyone's rights and Moore has already been kicked off the Alabama bench not once but twice because he steadfastly refused to do that. This is enough reason right there not to v**e for Moore but to v**e for Moore simply because he's not a Democrat is an even sicker thing to do then setting around a mall in the afternoon and drooling over little teenage girls!

Much of the document is an elucidation of those missions and includes specific recommendations about weaponry, deployment patterns, increased personnel and defense spending.
"In sum, the 1990s have been a 'decade of defense neglect'. This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights". But years of cuts in defense spending have eroded the American military’s combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon’s plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has found itself undermanned, inadequately equipped and trained, straining to handle contingency operations, and ill-prepared to adapt itself to the revolution in military affairs". "To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the 'Base Force' outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey 'tilt-rotor' aircraft for the Marine Corps.
CANCEL 'ROADBLOCK' PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military t***sformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW 'INTERNATIONAL COMMONS' OF SPACE AND 'CYBERSPACE,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
EXPLOIT THE 'REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS' to ensure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage t***sformation process which
• ?maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
• ?produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually" (p. v).
"In general terms, it seems likely that the process of t***sformation will take several decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today’s weapons systems for a decade or more.
Army
List of recommendations for modernizing the Army (see p. 23).
"American landpower remains the essential link in the chain that t***slates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence. Even as the means for delivering firepower on the battlefield shift – strike aircraft have realized all but the wildest dreams of air power enthusiasts, unmanned aerial vehicles promise to extend strike power in the near future, and the ability to conduct strikes from space appears on the not-too-distant horizon – the need for ground maneuvers to achieve decisive political results endures. The U.S. Army, and American land forces more generally, must increasingly complement the strike capabilities of the other services. Conversely, an American military force that lacks the ability to employ ground forces that can survive and maneuver rapidly on future battlefields will deprive U.S. political leaders of a decisive tool of diplomacy" (p. 30).
Air Force — Toward a Global First-Strike Force
List of recommendations for modernizing the Air Force (See p. 31).
"Although air power remains the most flexible and responsive element of U.S. military power, the Air Force needs to be restructured, repositioned, revitalized and enlarged to assure continued 'global reach, global power'" (p. 31).
"Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first U.S. military force to arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its ability to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of aircraft to deter wars and shape any conflict in its earliest stages. "A gradual increase in Air Force spending back to a $110 billion to $115 billion level is required to increase service personnel strength; build new units, especially the composite wings required to perform the 'air constabulary missions' such as no-fly zones; add the support capabilities necessary to complement the fleet of tactical aircraft; reinvest in space capabilities and begin the process of t***sformation"."A recent study done for the Air Force indicates that a worldwide network of forward operating bases….might cost $5 billion to $10 billion through 2010. The study speculates that some of the cost might be paid for by host nations anxious to cement ties with the United States, or, in Europe, be considered as common NATO assets and charged to the NATO common fund" (p. 20).
Navy/Marine Corps: the advance of precision-strike technology may mean that naval surface combatants, and especially the large-deck aircraft carriers that are the Navy’s capital ships, may not survive in the high-technology wars of the coming decades. Finally, the nature and pattern of Navy presence missions may be out of synch with emerging strategic realities. In sum, though it stands without peer today, the Navy faces major challenges to its traditional and, in the past, highly successful methods of operation". , the Navy should begin to conduct many of its presence missions with other kinds of battle groups based around cruisers, destroyers and other surface combatants as well as submarines. Indeed, the Navy needs to better understand the requirement to have substantial numbers of cruise-missile platforms at sea and in close proximity to regional hot spots, using carriers and naval aviation as reinforcing elements" (p. 46).
"The Navy’s force of attack submarines also should be expanded. It is unclear that the current and planned generations of attack submarines (to say nothing of new ballistic missile submarines) will be flexible enough to meet future demands. The Navy should reassess its submarine requirements not merely in light of current missions but with an expansive view of possible future missions as well" (p. 46).
"The Navy must begin to t***sition away from its heavy dependence on carrier operations….. Design and research on a future CVX carrier should continue, but should aim at a radical design change to accommodate an air wing based primarily on unmanned aerial vehicles" (p. 40).
"To offset the reduced role of carriers, the Navy should slightly increase its fleets of current-generation surface combatants and submarines for improved strike capabilities in littoral waters and to conduct an increasing proportion of naval presence missions with surface action groups. Overseas Bases
"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas" (p. 19).
"There should be a strong strategic synergy between U.S. forces overseas and in a reinforcing posture: units operating abroad are an indication of American geopolitical interests and leadership, provide significant military power to shape events and, in wartime, create the conditions for victory when reinforced. Conversely, maintaining the ability to deliver an unquestioned 'knockout punch' through the rapid introduction of stateside units will increase the shaping power of forces operating overseas and the vitality of our alliances. In sum, we see an enduring need for large-scale American forces". "The Air Force should be redeployed to reflect the shifts in international politics. Independent, expeditionary air wings containing a broad mix of aircraft, including electronic warfare, airborne command and control, and other support aircraft, should be based in Italy, Southeastern Europe, central and perhaps eastern Turkey, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia"
Nuclear Expansion: "Over the past decade, efforts to design and build effective missile defenses have been ill-conceived and underfunded, and the Clinton Administration has proposed deep reductions in U.S. nuclear forces without sufficient analysis of the changing global nuclear balance of forces". the Clinton Administration has put its faith in new arms control measures, most notably by signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). of all the elements of U.S. military force posture, perhaps none is more in need of reevaluation than America’s nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American military power but it is unclear whether the current U.S. nuclear arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post-Cold War world. Today’s strategic calculus encompasses more factors than just the balance of terror between the United States and Russia. U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals – from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force. , there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep under-ground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries".
source the new american magazine, william rivers pitt, pnac, ahmed chalabi, richard perle, donald kagan, greg palast, william rivers, bette stockbauer, weekly std, rd, pax americana,

I'm w/ you. My first choice was Rudy G since he was a former prosecutor who, along w/ Chertoff, severely crippled the Mafia in NY. Nevertheless, I was satisfied w/ the se******n of Sessions, especially since the Dems protested his se******n so vehemently.That was the tipoff to me that Trump made a good se******n. Since his confirmation, however, he's been a big disappointment, at least IMO. His skittishness about going after the bee-yatch, his non-action on the tarmac mtg, failure to send the US Marshals after Holder smells to me what members of the entrenched "establishment" do,i.e., talk but no action.

Latest News
NFL Commissioner Makes Jaw-Dropping Comment On Anthem Protests



Roger Goodell’s job is on the brink.

His regime as commissioner has been marred with several black eyes for the league, culminating in the anti-American anthem protests.

Goodell recently spoke about the protests, and his words were infuriating.

Goodell recognized that fans don’t watch football to be lectured with a political message. And yet, he does nothing about it.

From Breitbart:

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell tacitly acknowledged the damage done by the politicization of football in remarks delivered on Wednesday.

“People come to our stadiums to be entertained and have fun,” the commissioner noted, “not to be protested to.”

The remarks came as part of Bloomberg’s The Year Ahead Summit and reflect a recognition of a ratings decline and criticism from some sponsors. Though Goodell held that he hoped to learn from the concerns of players, he reiterated his desire that they stand for the national anthem.

“I think that’s one of the things I think when we have a platform the way we do, people seek to find that division and I think that’s something we try to resist,” Goodell explained of the protests. “And in this case I’ve been very clear about this — the anthem, the respect for our f**g is very important. So, I want to see our players stand.”

Despite the league’s endorsement last month of federal legislation aimed at reforming federal prisons and sentencing, Goodell maintained that “politics is not something we do.”

Goodell is one of the few people on the planet who could actually do something about the NFL protests, but he seems to be paralyzed by fear.

Goodell’s role as commissioner is to be a steady hand. Instead, he’s shirked his responsibilities.

That inaction could cost him his job.

More from Breitbart:

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones seeks to stop the National Football League from extending the contract of Commissioner Roger Goodell. The New York Times and ESPN’s Outside the Lines both report Jones hiring superstar lawyer David Boies — attorney for the defendant in Bush v. Gore, for disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, and for, yes, Roger Goodell’s NFL — in an effort to block Goodell’s contract.

The Times reported that “Jones said in a conference call last Thursday with the six owners — those of the Chiefs, Falcons, Giants, Patriots, Steelers and Texans — that legal papers were drawn up and would be served this Friday if the committee did not scrap its plans to extend Goodell’s contract.” When he informed those members of the compensation committee of his plans to sue the league, they reportedly asked him stay out of their group’s meetings.

ESPN’s Outside the Lines reports that its sources say “four or five owners” stand with Jones in opposing Goodell’s extension. ESPN noted the existence of about a half-dozen “fence-sitters” beyond the definite “no” v**es. Given that the commissioner requires two-thirds of the owners to approve his deal, his job appears in some jeopardy. Jones need only convince those fence-sitters of Goodell’s incompetence, a service Goodell himself periodically provides for his critics, to stop the extension and shop for a new [commissioner].

Many are the crimes of Goodell against Jones’s franchise: lowering the team’s salary cap as punishment for excessive spending in an uncapped season, suspending Ezekiel Elliott six games after the league’s investigator recommended no suspension, and blocking the team’s effort to honor slain Dallas cops with a decal all come to mind. But Goodell’s weakness against the anthem kneelers, rather than any offense against the Cowboys, that seems to primarily motivate Jerry Jones.

Jerry Jones is arguably the most influential owner in all of American professional sports. If Goodell has lost his support, it may be prudent for him to update his resume.

Unlike Goodell, the owners won’t sit idly by and watch their billion-dollar investments go down the drain because the commissioner is afraid to act.

http://www.offthewire.com



I figure this, if y'all call yourselves an American, and want to be respected by Her, then you need to thank her for giving y'all a life that you want to live. Stop living in the past, and live for today. America is a proud and honorable country, as is our Military, those who fought for this country and it's people, and the troops who still are fighting. Our F**g"Old Glory "is a symbol of p***e and dignity, and it should be respected.Take your protest home and not on our sports fields. As a Veteran and former US Navy Nurse from the Vietnam War,i want these rich asses and greedy players to pledge to the National Anthem, and stand tall for the place they call home.It is sad that a lot of folks have stopped watching our teams, but they are sick and tired of all this Crap!!!!!.