Obama-Style Lawlessness: House Leadership A-OK With Illegals in Military

We should count our blessings when dealing with this Republican-controlled Congress. At least they did what some of us called on them to do and stripped out the provision from the NDAA (H.R. 4909) including women in mandatory registration for Selective Service. Unfortunately, they have, once again, failed to utilize the “must-pass” defense authorization bill as a vehicle to fight the broader social engineering and transformation of our military. It appears that this much-vaunted promise of an open amendment process only applies to banal “in the weeds” issues, not to some of the fundamental issues affecting the morale, security, and mission of the military.

One policy Obama has been using to promote his social transformation is opening up the military to illegal aliens he unilaterally amnestied through his DACA program. In September 2014, the Department of Defense announced a new policy allowing military recruiters to enlist illegal immigrants under the auspices of the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest, or MAVNI. This was a pilot program created in 2008 designed to recruit foreign nationals with special language skills, but the program was only opened to legal immigrants. These foreign nationals are then given citizenship in return for their service and are able to bypass the 10-year green card process. After just a few months, 43 illegals immigrants were accepted into the MAVNI program. Undoubtedly, more have enlisted over the past year.

The acceptance of DACA recipients into MAVNI was part of a broader push from the administration and allies in Congress to open up all military service to illegal immigrants at a time when soldiers are being let go in large numbers as a result of Obama’s drastic cuts to the military.

The NDAA was a perfect opportunity to explicitly block Obama’s DoD directive to open military positions to DACA recipients. Yet, rather than go on offense, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, at the behest of Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), inserted a provision into the bill (Section 597) expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense has the discretion to authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens when it is “vital to the national interest.” This provision passed in committee by voice vote and Rep. Gallego declared it a “victory for Dreamers.” The pride of the nation, which protects our sovereignty and constitutional republic — was allowed to be used as a conduit to repudiate our rule of law.

In comes Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) last night to the House Rules Committee hearing where members teed up over 100 amendments to the NDAA. Gosar introduced an amendment to strike section 597 of the NDAA and affirm existing law explicitly barring illegal aliens from joining the military. Among all the small-ball amendments made in order last night, Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) did not approve the Gosar amendment.

It’s a shame that Thornberry and Sessions were not willing to stand up for the military and stop Obama from using it as a visa mill for lawlessness. Moreover, the presence of illegal aliens in the military represents a huge security risk. The Obama administration has approved almost every DACA application, and as Judicial Watch discovered in 2014, DHS ostensibly gutted all background checks for DACA applicants, including the requirement of a government issued photo ID. As of a year ago, 282 DACA recipients lost their status after being approved due to their affiliation with gangs.

Moreover, as Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), a co-sponsor of the Gosar amendment, observed, why would there be a need for illegal immigrants in the military when Obama is dramatically downsizing it? “At a time when we are drawing down our military forces, and unable to retain and promote the men and women who have so bravely served our country, it is irrational, demeaning and absurd to ask that we prioritize the DREAMers over our own service members,” said the Virginia congressman.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) likes to brag about his open amendment process, but that process is only truly open to either insignificant issues or bills that will never become law. As I noted during last year’s NDAA vote, Republicans have failed to use the defense bill to stop any area of social engineering, including the unilateral lifting of the ban on transgender individuals in the military, placing women into direct ground combat against the wishes of Marine commanders, and stifling religious freedom in the service. This has taken a toll on morale in the military. In addition to dealing with all the spending and procurement issues, Republicans should be using the NDAA to reverse the terrible polices Obama’s Pentagon has unilaterally foisted upon our military.

Conservatives should pick up the motto of the Army: “This We’ll Defend” and should defend the institution against lawlessness and demand that this amnesty provision be stripped from the defense bill before it receives a final vote on the floor.

“While we are disappointed by the decision to not make the amendment in order, we are actively pursuing other avenues to achieve the same policy objective,” said Gosar in a statement to Conservative Review. “We are confident that this amendment will ultimately receive a vote on the House floor in the near future.” (For more from the author of “Obama-Style Lawlessness: House Leadership A-OK With Illegals in Military” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Secretary of the Air Force Eric Fanning Visits the 106th Rescue Wing

Senate Approves First Openly Gay Army Secretary

The Senate approved Eric Fanning to lead the Army on Tuesday, giving the military branch its first openly gay secretary.

The Senate confirmed Fanning by unanimous consent after his nomination had been held in limbo for months because of a fight over the Guantánamo Bay detention center.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) said Tuesday that he had dropped his hold on Fanning’s nomination because the “clock has run out” for the president to move Guantánamo Bay detainees into the United States . . .

Fanning was previously the acting secretary and undersecretary of the Air Force. The Senate Armed Services Committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), approved Fanning’s nomination in March, and Roberts blocked McCain from bringing up Fanning’s nomination last month.

McCain thanked Roberts for lifting his hold and praised his work on the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act, which largely holds the line on current Guantanamo Bay restrictions. (Read more from “Senate Approves First Openly Gay Army Secretary” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


6 Facts Highlight Why We Need to Rebuild Our Military

The U.S. military seems to be breaking. Senior military leaders have made dire statements before Congress, and story after story is revealing the potentially deadly challenges facing our men and women in uniform.

As Congress considers the annual defense authorization bill, here are six clear, real-world examples of why Congress needs to use the defense bill to start rebuilding the U.S. military.

1. The Marine Corps is pulling parts off of museum planes to keep their F-18s flying. Even with that drastic action, only about 30 percent of their F-18s are ready to fly. Not only that, but instead of getting 25 or 30 hours a month in the cockpit, Marine Corps pilots are getting as little as four hours per month of flying time.

Only one-third of Army brigades are ready for combat. The Army has now fallen to the smallest level since before World War II, while the top Army general says that the Army would face “high military risk” if it were to fight a serious war.

3. The Air Force is cannibalizing parts from some F-16’s to keep other F-16’s flying and is pulling parts off museum planes to keep their B-1 bombers flying. And half of Air Force squadrons are not prepared for serious combat.

4. The Navy keeps extending deployments of its ships, but still doesn’t have enough to meet demand. While the Navy needs about 350 ships, today it only has 273.

5. Serious crashes of Marine Corps planes and helicopters are nearly double the 10-year average.

6. The Air Force’s B-52 bombers are an average of 53 years old. Most Americans would not want to drive across the country in a 53-year-old car, let alone go to combat in a 53-year-old airplane.

These six facts show the consequences of cutting the national defense budget by 25 percent over the last five years.

At the same time, threats are growing. Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatens more. China is building illegal islands. Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and North Korea already has one. And we also face the real threat of terrorism and the growing threat of cyberattacks.

The bottom line is that Congress needs to start rebuilding the U.S. military. We can’t let this go much further. (For more from the author of “6 Facts Highlight Why We Need to Rebuild Our Military” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Four-ship fini flight

McCain Slips Provision to Draft Women Into NDAA

Pregnant, female, Navy SEALs was something many of us used to joke about as a way of exaggerating the absurd social engineering in the military. Yet, placing women in special operations and direct combat units has now become a reality under the Obama-led Pentagon. Sadly, not only have Republicans like John McCain refused to use their perches on the Armed Services Committees in the House and Senate to block this social engineering, they are now codifying it with a provision that could lead to a mandatory draft of all women.

Earlier this week, I noted that the final House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contained a provision for the first time ever including young women in the requirement to register for Selective Service. However, this provision was only added because of a strategic mistake of the committee chairman who thought the members would vote down this absurdity. He was just trying to make a point. John McCain, on the other hand, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, deliberately placed that provision in his chairman’s mark of the NDAA, according to a Senate staffer.

I am further told by Senate staff that it is unlikely an amendment to strike this provision will even succeed on the floor of the Senate, which means a majority of that body now supports drafting women. The only hope to stop this is on the House floor. Have we gone mad as a society?

Any vestige of GOP opposition to Democrat social transformation is now gone. There is no floor. Battle lines that used to hold for decades are now plowed through by Democrats in a matter of one committee markup. A party that stands for nothing, indeed.

Update: A Summary of the NDAA from McCain’s office defends the provision to include women in Selective Service as follows: “Because the Department of Defense has lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat units, the committee believes there is no further justification in limiting the duty to register under the Military Selective Service Act to men.” Thus, McCain believes that because a few liberal social groups and Obama’s politically appointed generals want to include women in combat on a voluntary basis, the Senate should therefore require all women to potentially register for the draft. And instead of debating this earth shattering social transformation publicly in a standalone bill, McCain decided to slip in the provision to a 1,000-page bill authorizing all defense programs.

Another disturbing provision in this bill establishes an independent National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. The commission is tasked with, among other things, to “consider how to foster a sense of service and civic responsibility among the nation’s youth, improve military recruiting, and increase the pool of qualified applicants for military service and their propensity to serve.” While this provision sounds innocuous, some conservatives might be concerned that given McCain’s long record of support for Americorps and other public service programs, he will use this program to compel young adults (now including women) into some sort of public service.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, was so vehemently opposed to this provision that he voted against the underlying bill. In a statement provided to Conservative Review, the Texas senator noted that although the committee adopted 12 of his amendments related to an array of foreign policy and national security issues, he could not “in good conscience vote to draft our daughters into the military, sending them off to war and forcing them into combat.” “I will continue my efforts to speak out against the effort to force America’s daughter into combat,” wrote the former presidential candidate in a statement.

Update: Sens. Mike Lee and Deb Fischer also voted against final passage. Sen. Lee called this provision “misguided and ill-advised” in a statement he released tonight. He also opposed the bill because it continues the program funding the Syrian rebels. “The bill authorizes the continuation of the Syria Train and Equip program, which was suspended last year after expending hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to train only four or five fighters and finance the purchase of weapons that were ultimately seized by Al Nusra, the Syrian Al Qaeda affiliate,” wrote Lee. “I firmly believe that the American counter-ISIS strategy must be reconsidered from the top-down and that we should not fund failing programs.” (For more from the author of “John McCain Slips in Provision to Draft Women in Defense Bill” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Enduring Freedom

Don’t Force America’s Daughters Into Combat

Not long ago, the Obama administration determined that women can enter all military combat occupations. Now the debate has quickly shifted to whether women can be forced into combat.

Suddenly, the exceptional qualifications and ambition of a few women seeking ground combat roles could have significant consequences for all women.

A proposal to “Draft America’s Daughters,” part of the National Defense Authorization Act, is headed for the House floor the week of May 16. The policy would require women between the ages of 18 and 26 to register for Selective Service, making them eligible to be called up—right along with young men—if Congress were to reinstate the draft.

Congress should act now to prohibit forcing women into combat, including through requiring them to register for Selective Service. Congress should also revisit the Obama administration’s decision to open all combat roles to women without exception, which increases pressure to include women in the draft. The rush to advance these policies ignores the military’s own research on the issue and leaves a number of critical questions unresolved.

Exceptions Denied

In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta directed the military services to conduct reviews with the goal of integrating women into all combat occupations by January 2016. Service chiefs had until September 2015 to request exceptions.

The most extensive review was the Marine Corps’ Gender Integration Task Force, which evaluated mixed gender units in combat training activities over nine months. On 134 ground combat tasks, all-male units outperformed mixed units in 69 percent of the tasks. Mixed units outperformed male units in just two tasks. The findings showed significant differentials in performance between females and males. Top-performing females overlapped with low-performing males. Female training course completion rates lagged well behind men, and women’s injury rate was much higher.

Women’s increased risk of injury in combat-related tasks (especially load-bearing tasks that depend considerably on physiology) makes them more vulnerable when engaging the enemy. “Combat is not an equal opportunity for women because they don’t have an equal opportunity to survive,” says Jude Eden, who served in the Marine Corps but opposes opening combat roles to women. Women on the front lines would be especially at risk if captured by the enemy (consider the Islamic State’s brutalization of female prisoners in recent months).

The moral framework guiding Western policy for the use of force requires strategic choices to minimize casualties in combat. It is one thing for women to be drawn into combat incidentally or to be attached to a combat unit for a discrete functional mission. But it’s quite another to plan to send women into frontline ground combat knowing, as Eden says, “they don’t have an equal opportunity to survive.”

Combat Effectiveness or Social Goals?

The Marines’ evaluation of the combat effectiveness of mixed units led the commandant of the Marine Corps to recommend in September 2015 that some ground combat roles continue to be limited to men. That request was rebuffed, however, and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter declared in December that all military occupations, without exception, would be open to women as of Jan. 1, 2016.

Brushing past such military concerns was in step with a comment made by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey at the outset of the review period. As he told military commanders back in 2013, if a woman could not meet their units’ standards, they would have to justify why the standards need to be that high. Meanwhile, in May 2015, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus directed that one in four enlisted recruits in the Navy and Marine Corps should be women.

These instances raise questions about whether social goals have taken precedence over military objectives in the march to put women in combat. Moreover, the momentum to open all options for the few extraordinary women seeking to serve in ground combat is now propelling us toward a requirement that could affect all women.

Congress should prohibit forcing women into combat and should take a longer look at the blanket policy of women in all combat roles, prioritizing military effectiveness as it does so. Equality does not mean disregarding differences that are relevant to accomplishing the mission—especially when that mission is life or death.

Women in the armed forces have courageously served our nation with distinction, including during wartime. It does not do justice to the valor and sacrifice they have made in many different roles to suggest that women’s equality cannot be achieved without sending women into ground combat.

Women in Combat: May or Must?

While other arguments against including women in a draft can be made, some members of Congress and two federal court challenges already are seeking to exploit the opening of all combat roles to women to get a different result.

The combat exclusion was a significant factor in a 1981 Supreme Court case on registering women for Selective Service.

In Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court deferred to Congress, citing the combat distinction. “Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them,” Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority. “Congress was certainly entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers to raise and regulate armies and navies, to focus on the question of military need rather than ‘equity.’”

If the draft were reinstated in a future conflict and women were included, what would the consequences be for combat effectiveness, for individual women sent into frontline ground combat, for the men alongside them, or for families and society at large?

With such looming questions unanswered, Congress should prohibit forcing women into combat, including through Selective Service registration. And, since many voices are already citing the fact that women can serve in all combat posts to argue that women must register for the draft, Congress should also revisit the blanket policy of women in combat. (For more from the author of “Don’t Force America’s Daughters Into Combat” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


An Army Captain Is Suing Obama for This Major Reason

Bush-era war authorizations do not give President Obama authority to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an Army officer argued in a lawsuit filed Wednesday against Obama.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. district court by an intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait who says he supports the fight against ISIS but believes it is being carried out illegally because Congress hasn’t specifically authorized it.

“How could I honor my oath when I am fighting a war, even a good war, that the Constitution does not allow, or Congress has not approved?” Capt. Nathan Michael Smith wrote. “To honor my oath, I am asking the court to tell the president that he must get proper authority from Congress, under the War Powers Resolution, to wage the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”

Obama has sought an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) from Congress. But Congress has been hesitant to take it up, with Republicans worried it would be too restrictive and some Democrats worried it wouldn’t be restrictive enough.

In the absence of a new AUMF, Obama has said he has the authority to fight ISIS from the 2001 authorization to fight al Qaeda, from which ISIS originated. (Read more from “An Army Captain Is Suing Obama for This Major Reason” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


After Islamic State Attacks From Brussels to Paris, U.S. Sends Delta Force and Navy SEALs to Hunt Terrorists

hqdefaultAfter Islamic State terrorists carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Brussels, Paris, Egypt and other parts of Africa, the U.S. reportedly sent U.S. special operations forces after those believed to be responsible for planning the acts of terror.

And they were up for the challenge.

So far, Members of Delta Force and Navy SEALs have hunted down and killed 40 “external operations leaders, planners, and facilitators” behind several of the Islamic State attacks, The Daily Beast reported, citing “defense officials.”

The special ops forces’ success has significantly affected the terrorist group’s ability to recruit foreign fighters, according to the report. (Read more from “After Islamic State Attacks From Brussels to Paris, U.S. Sends Delta Force and Navy SEALs to Hunt Terrorists” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Enduring Freedom

Army Retains Decorated Green Beret It Planned to Kick out Over Confronting Afghan Child Rapist

Enduring FreedomIn a stunning reversal, the U.S. Army decided late Thursday to retain a decorated Green Beret it had planned to kick out after he physically confronted a local Afghan commander accused of raping a boy over the course of many days.

Sgt 1st Class Charles Martland, confirmed the Army’s decision to retain him when reached by Fox News, who has been covering the story in depth for the past eight months and first broke the story of the Army’s decision in August to kick out Martland over the incident, which occurred in northern Afghanistan in 2011.

“I am real thankful for being able to continue to serve,” said Martland when reached on the telephone by Fox News. “I appreciate everything Congressman Duncan Hunter and his Chief of Staff, Joe Kasper did for me.”

As first reported by Fox News, while deployed to Kunduz Province, Afghanistan, Martland and his team leader confronted a local police commander in 2011 accused of raping an Afghan boy and beating his mother. When the man laughed off the incident, they shoved him to the ground.

Martland and his team leader were later removed from the base, and eventually sent home from Afghanistan. The U.S. Army has not confirmed the specifics of Martland’s separation from service citing privacy reasons, but a “memorandum of reprimand” from October 2011 obtained by Fox News makes clear that Martland was criticized by the brass for his intervention after the alleged rape. Asked for comment in September 2015, an Army spokesman reiterated, “the U.S. Army is unable to confirm the specifics of his separation due to the Privacy Act.” (Read more from “Army Retains Decorated Green Beret It Planned to Kick out Over Confronting Afghan Child Rapist” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Despicable Congress Moves to Require Female Draft, Force Our Daughters Into Combat

Female_Signal_officer_speaks_to_the_future_roles_of_women_in_combat_130313-A-ER359-359By Carlo Munoz. House lawmakers took a large step toward putting female soldiers on the front lines on Wednesday, approving legislation requiring women to register for the draft.

Members of the House Armed Services committee passed the measure as part of the panel’s version of the defense spending bill for fiscal year 2017, according to the Associated Press.

After a lengthy, and at times heated debate, the legislation only passed by a slim two vote margin with the bill’s main sponsor California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter actually voting against the measure during the House defense spending bill markup on Wednesday.

Hunter, along with former SEAL and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, initially proposed the plan to require women to register for the draft in Feburary, shortly after the Pentagon lifted its ban on female service members from serving in combat infantry units and special operations forces.

“It’s wrong and irresponsible to make wholesale changes to the way America fights its wars without the American people having a say on whether their daughters and sisters will be on the front lines of combat,” Hunter said at the time. (Read more from “Despicable Congress Moves to Require Female Draft, Force Our Daughters Into Combat” HERE)


House Committee Votes to Draft Women Into Selective Service

By Daniel Horowitz. We have officially lost it as a civil society. All the gender-bending has taken its toll on our political leaders, forcing them to come full circle and endorse a mandatory draft for all young women in this country.

Yesterday, during a marathon markup of the $610 billion annual defense bill (NDAA), the House Armed Services Committee added an amendment including women in the requirement for all young adults to register for the Selective Service. The amendment was originally sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), an opponent of social engineering in the military, in order to jumpstart a discussion of how the ‘women in combat agenda’ has gone too far. You might call it a case study of acting absurd in order to illustrate absurdity. But as it turns out, there is no floor to the politically correct insanity of our political class. Republicans Joe Heck, Martha McSally, and Chris Gibson joined the Democrats in passing this amendment and attaching it to the NDAA. The vote tally was 32-30.

To be clear, this entire exercise was pointless and will not become law. Moreover, the Selective Service is gratuitous and will likely go by the wayside one of these days. But the point is we’ve reached rock bottom in our culture when every Democrat and even some Republicans now believe women should be forcibly drafted into the military. Remember, several months ago during the New Hampshire primary debate when every candidate except for Ted Cruz expressed support for women in combat and women registering for the draft. Last year, Trump said he would absolutely support women in combat.

Add this to the endless list of bedrock principles many Republicans are willing to toss overboard. As John Kasich likes to say, we just need to get over it. (For more from the author of “House Committee Votes to Draft Women Into Selective Service” please click HERE)


Three Republicans Split Ranks, Allow Measure to Pass

By Scott Maucione. The amendment, which narrowly passed 32-30, made for one of the more drastic votes of the 16 1/2 hour marathon, with the author (Rep. Duncan Hunter) voting against his own provision.

The amendment legally requires women to sign up for the selective service when they become adults. In the case of a draft, those women will be called up to military duty just as men are now. . .

The voting on the amendment was split largely along party lines, however a few Republicans broke rank.

Reps. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) voted to add women to the selective services. (Read more from “Three Republicans Split Ranks, Allow Measure to Pass” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Thousands of Iraq, Afghan War Vets Sickened After Working at ‘Burn Pits’

Thousands of U.S. military personnel who served on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan recall the dense black smoke from burn pits where everything from IEDs to human waste was incinerated.

Now many have died, and more are gravely ill. Those battling a grim menu of cancers, as well as their loved ones and advocates, trace their condition to breathing in the toxic fumes they say could be the most recent wars’ version of Agent Orange or Gulf War Illness.

“The clouds of smoke would just hang throughout the base,” Army Sgt. Daniel Diaz, who was stationed at Joint Base Balad, in Iraq’s Sunni Triangle from 2004-2005, told “No one ever gave it any thought. You are just so focused on the mission at hand. In my mind, I was just getting ready for the fight.”

Diaz returned from duty in 2008. A year later, he started developing health problems including cancer, chronic fatigue and weakness, neuropathy and hypothyroidism. Nearly every base he was stationed at during his four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan had burn pits nearby – and pungent smoke everywhere . . .

During the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the burn pit method was adopted originally as a temporary measure to get rid of waste and garbage generated on bases. Everything was incinerated in the pits, say soldiers, including plastics, batteries, appliances, medicine, dead animals and even human waste. The items were often set ablaze with jet fuel as the accelerant. (Read more from “Thousands of Iraq, Afghan War Vets Sickened After Working at ‘Burn Pits'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.