I just came across this article and found it quite telling in fact, especially with regards to the direction the army is heading - more towards civilian control than protecting the country. I know that Sevan has often revealed he is the son of a military man and was wondering what his perspective was on the article below, the changes we are seeing creeping into the army and how it was different when his father was serving?

*Quick note* I don't agree with all that the author is presenting, but he does raise a fair amount of important issues.

Article below:



By Chuck Baldwin
February 5, 2010

Most of us Americans have a deep and abiding respect and admiration for our country's fighting men who have served--and are serving--within the
US Armed Forces. We appreciate their willingness to put themselves in
harm's way for the preservation of our nation's liberty and independence.
We honor their sacrifice. Indeed, many of us share that sacrifice with
the deaths, dismemberments, and paralysis of our most cherished loved
ones who were killed or injured in the line of duty.

It is time, however, that we awaken to the reality of what our military is becoming and where it is heading. Suffice it to say, this is not
your father's army.

On December 8, 1941, my father, Ed Baldwin--along with his two brothers, Bud and Gene--marched down to a recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas,
to enlist. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the day before, and
no branch of service had to beg people to enlist that day. Bud joined
the Navy. Gene joined the Marines. When government officials saw Dad's
resumé, they selected him to help construct the atomic bomb.
All three brothers served their country with distinction throughout
the war.

But what all of us need to realize is, World War II was the last constitutionally fought war in which America has been engaged. The United Nations was
created at the end of WWII, and ever since then, our military forces
have increasingly become the "peacekeeping" arm of that evil

Since WWII, American forces have fought major wars in South Korea, South Vietnam (including Laos and Cambodia), Kosovo, the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), Iraq,
Afghanistan, and now Pakistan--all for the benefit of the United Nations.
Add to these major wars lesser conflicts (except to those Americans
killed or wounded in them) such as Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Congo
(Zaire), Iran, El Salvador, Libya, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, Panama,
Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Sierra Leone,
Kenya, Tanzania, and Somalia. And this does not take into account the
countless CIA-sponsored Black Ops missions that have taken place all
over the world.

Yes, American forces have been used to both put people in power and take people out of power all over the world. And as often as not, the people
we put in power were counted among the "bad guys," while the
people we removed from power were "good guys." Remember, our
own CIA was the organization most responsible for the rise to power
of Osama Bin Laden. And it was the US government that surreptitiously
set up the murder of Dr. Jonas Savimbi, who was one of the best friends
the United States had overseas. Plus, does anyone remember how the US
treated our friend, the Shah of Iran? Yes, some of us are old enough
to remember when Iran was one of the best friends we had in that region
of the world.

But mind you, not one single war in which American forces have been engaged since WWII has been constitutionally fought. Not one!

Ever since the United Nations was created, its interests have dominated the usage of US forces. In fact, our military today is quickly morphing
into the tip of the spear for a burgeoning, global New World Order.
To those with eyes to see, the evidence is everywhere. It's not even
being hidden anymore. Have you seen that new US Navy television commercial?
It boldly proclaims, "The US Navy: A GLOBAL FORCE For Good."
(Emphasis added.)

This politically correct, UN-dominated New World Order has changed (and is changing) our US military right before our eyes. It has taken the greatest
and proudest independent fighting force in the world--one created to
defend the people and property of the United States--and turned it into
a global military policeman for the evil Machiavellians at the UN.

In order to convert the US military into a true "Global Force," several changes are being forced upon our fighting men.

First, more and more women are entering the US military.

Currently, women comprise about 20% of military personnel. And for the first time in US history, women are actively engaged in combat units in the current
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The massive integration of women in combat
may serve the interests of political correctness, but it does not serve
the interests of combat effectiveness. Neither does it serve the interests
of family and child rearing. And I don't care how old fashioned that

Wives and mothers are the backbone of family nurturing. To willingly take mothers away from their children--and subject both mother and child
to the separation and suffering that military life demands--is both
unnatural and cruel.

And there is another stark reality that few people want to discuss: the fact that 30% of all women in the US military are raped. Yes, you read
it right: 30%.

According to NPR, "In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were
seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent
of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving.
And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found
that 90 percent had been sexually harassed."

See the report here.

Government and military brass know that the introduction of women into the military environment (especially the combat environment) is reaping problems
of epidemic proportions, but they are deliberately ignoring and even
covering them up.

For example, does anyone recall the name Jamie Leigh Jones? According to ABC News, "A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR
coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering
up the incident.

"Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping
container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical
treatment, she'd be out of a job."

See the report here.

And this story leads into another phenomenon being created within this New World Order army: the way our government and military are increasing
their use of "private" or "independent" contractors.
In the past, these people were always known simply as mercenaries. Call
them what you will, mercenaries are now a major component of the way
our government wages war.

According to Global Research, "The growing use of private armies not only subjects target populations to savage warfare but makes it easier for
the White House to subvert domestic public opinion and wage wars.

"Americans are less inclined to oppose a war that is being fought by hired foreign mercenaries, even when their own tax dollars are being squandered to
fund it.

" 'The increasing use of contractors, private forces, or, as some would say, "mercenaries," makes wars easier to begin and to fight--it
just takes money and not the citizenry,' said Michael Ratner, of New
York's Center for Constitutional Rights. 'To the extent a population
is called upon to go to war, there is resistance, a necessary resistance
to prevent wars of self-aggrandizement, foolish wars, and, in the case
of the United States, hegemonic imperialist wars.'"

See the report here.

Remember, at any given moment, there might be as many--if not more--mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as there are US military forces. For
example, according to the Christian Science Monitor, in early 2008,
the number of mercenaries fighting in Iraq numbered more than 190,000.
Remember, in addition to the benefit of not drafting US citizens to
fight these perpetual wars (and thus avoid incurring the wrath and resistance
of the American public), mercenaries enjoy the luxury of not having
to comply with the military rules of engagement. And the stories of
atrocities committed by US-employed mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan
are too numerous to list.

In addition to the Jamie Jones case mentioned above, consider the case where Blackwater (now called Xe) mercenaries mowed down 17 Iraqi citizens
in an unprovoked attack. And, of course, no one at Blackwater was held
accountable for these murders. Reports of abuse, cruelty, and savagery
by mercenaries in Iraq are commonplace. According to the Global Research
report, "Many soldiers of fortune on private payrolls previously
served dictators in South Africa, Chile, and elsewhere."

The Washington Post quotes Brigadier General Karl Horst, an advisor to the U.S. Joint Force Command as saying, "These guys [mercenaries] run
loose in this country [Iraq] and do stupid stuff. There's no authority
over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force
. . . They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath.
It happens all over the place."

And you wonder why the United States is viewed so negatively around the world?

Granted, there is a place and proper use for mercenaries. Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor of The Progress Report, rightly observes, "One alternative
to U.S. military action against terrorists who have attacked the U.S.
and other countries, and are threatening further attacks, is to enact
Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of
the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to 'grant letters of Marque
and Reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water.'
A 'reprisal' means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal
could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for
an attack and injury. It could include forces used against the perpetrators
for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing
a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.

"'Marque' is related to 'marching' and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a letter of Marque and Reprisal would
authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct
reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.

"Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution.
The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country
are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the
government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who
were in Afghanistan."

See Foldvary's column here.

And that is exactly what Congressman Ron Paul attempted to do. He proposed H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize
the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. See Dr.
Paul's Press Release here

However, neither the Congress nor the White House--Democrat or Republican--has any intention of following the Constitution; therefore, Letters of Marque
and Reprisal were never authorized. As a result, no authority has been
granted to these mercenaries to wage war on behalf of anyone, especially
not the people of the United States.

But what unauthorized mercenaries do accomplish is to fulfill the demands of internationalists and globalists to use unaccountable and uncontrolled
(at least by normal military protocols) private armies for their own
personal and nefarious purposes.

The next step for our politically correct "Global Force" is the authorization for homosexuals to serve openly in the US military. This
has long been the goal of globalists, and it is now about to happen.

It was globalist President Bill Clinton who introduced the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that allows homosexuals to serve in the
US armed forces--but not openly. Of course, this was a major departure
from US military history. From George Washington's Continental army
until the Clinton administration, homosexuality was deemed "incompatible"
with military service. And now globalist Barack Obama is leading Congress
to change the policy even further by allowing homosexuals to serve openly
in the US military.

However, please consider this: if our governmental and military leaders would cover up the raping of American servicewomen by servicemen, don't you
know that they will cover up the raping of American servicemen by homosexual
servicemen? Mark this down: mixing sex (heterosexual or homosexual)
and military service is a recipe for disaster. And the potential damage
inflicted upon military units (especially combat units) is exacerbated
exponentially by the introduction of large numbers of homosexuals and
women into those units. (This is the universal sentiment of virtually
every active duty or retired serviceman I have ever spoken with.) But
it does fit perfectly into the plans of the New World Order architects,
who want to use the US military as much for the advancement of their
politically correct agenda as they do for any actual military purpose.

Plus, dare I mention how that many violent gangs in North America are encouraging their members to join the US military in order to learn tactics and
skills, which enable them to more effectively inflict their criminality
upon the American people? Well, it's true. And our military brass knows
it's true, and yet they still allow these thugs to enter our military.
Hispanic gang members, especially, are entering the US military in droves.

According to a report in The American Conservative magazine, "[R]ecent figures indicate that gang membership in the Armed Forces significantly surpasses
civilian levels. Stars and Stripes reported that 1 to 2 percent of the
military are gang members, compared to 0.02 percent of the general population."

See the report here.

No, ladies and gentlemen, it is not your father's army. And, sadly, while many of our fine military leaders (not to mention many of our active
duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines) see all of this taking
place, they are practically powerless to stop it, because political
correctness and globalism run rampant in Washington, D.C., including
at the Pentagon.

Views: 71

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thank You for this valuable information.
Thank you for takin the time bring this piece to our attention



Sevan Bomar created this Ning Network.

© 2024   Created by Sevan Bomar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service