The Command Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army’s Drill Sergeant School (DSS) has been suspended from duty, and the Army is working overtime to smother the story.

An investigative report by militarycorruption.com (MCC) has uncovered the story Army brass would love to keep secret. According to MCC, which specializing in exposing stories about our military the mainstream media and official channels won’t talk about, the Command Sergeant Major of the Army’s Drill Sergeant’s School (DSS) Teresa King has been charged with a variety of violations of Army regulations.

Sergeant Major Teresa King is an African-American who will be 50 years old this year. She is divorced, has no children, and has been in the Army for 31 years. Upon taking command of the DSS on September 22, 2009, King became the first female ever to hold that position.

On paper, Sergeant Major King sounds like an ideal soldier and well qualified to be in such an important slot in the Army’s training structure. Nevertheless, once the “paper” is turned over, questions about why she was selected abound.

Reports from MCC’s on the ground correspondents say King’s suspension from duty was prompted by her heavy drinking, sexual relationship with a lower ranking enlisted soldier, and the fact that at least one of the college degree she listed on her resume is from a schools deemed to be diploma mill.

Read More at Western Journalism by Kevin “Coach” Collins

The so-called Eleventh Commandment — “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican” — which was popularized by President Ronald Reagan, has been violated numerous times in this electoral season. Now, following his somewhat unexpected success in Iowa, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum appears to have violated the unspoken Twelfth Amendment: “Thou shalt not insult Ronald Reagan.”

At a New Hampshire event on Wednesday, Santorum addressed America’s financial crisis and spoke candidly about entitlement spending. Rather than praising Reagan, who is revered by many conservatives as a stellar president and a political savior of sorts, the 2012 hopeful said that the former president contributed to the entitlement crisis by kicking the can down the road on Social Security issues. According to Santorum, Reagan should have dealt with long-term Social Security problems during a 1983 bipartisan deal.

The Daily Caller reports:

Santorum was walking the audience through what he called the “ancient days of yesteryear” in a interminable and incredibly detailed response to a questioner. He explained that in the 1983 deal Reagan brokered with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil to fix Social Security, the retirement age was moved back to 67, but that change wasn’t slated to be enacted until the politicians responsible were out of office.

Speaking in third person, he said, “If Rick Santorum gets elected and we do what I said that we need to do, which is to deal with the entitlement programs now, not 10 to 20 years from now.” Then, he went in for the “kill” that may leave a sour taste in the mouths of Reagan-loving conservatives.

“You’ll know — unlike Ronald Reagan who maybe was a better politician than me — you’ll know that it was Rick Santorum that worked together and got the American public to gather together to fix this problem,” he said. “Why? Because it is our problem.”

 Read More at The Blaze By Billy Hallowell, The Blaze

Last night’s nail-biter in Iowa marked the beginning of election year 2012. And with Americans heading to the polls — next in New Hampshire, then South Carolina and beyond — they will hope to rely on the integrity of the election system to ensure that every legitimate vote counts and that fraud is not the deciding factor on the local, state or national level.

Unfortunately, despite all the technological advances in our modern democracy, voter fraud still occurs, and yet there is still resistance to one very simple tool that could help eradicate it — voter ID. Some, like The New York Times, say that voting fraud is a myth, that “there is almost no voting fraud in America.” But as Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky explains, voter fraud is all too common in America today:

The fraud denialists also must have missed the recent news coverage of the double voters in North Carolina and the fraudster in Tunica County, Miss. — a member of the NAACP’s local executive committee — who was sentenced in April to five years in prison for voting in the names of ten voters, including four who were deceased.

And the story of the former deputy chief of staff for Washington mayor Vincent Gray, who was forced to resign after news broke that she had voted illegally in the District of Columbia even though she was a Maryland resident. Perhaps they would like a copy of an order from a federal immigration court in Florida on a Cuban immigrant who came to the U.S. in April 2004 and promptly registered and voted in the November election.

Even former liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agrees. Stevens wrote in a 6-3 majority opinion upholding an Indiana voter ID law: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Given the incidence of voter fraud — and the simplicity of requiring voters to present a valid ID in order to be able to vote — it’s not surprising that 70 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that voters “should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot,” according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Meanwhile, only 22 percent of Americans are opposed to the requirement.

Despite the fraud — and the support for voter ID measures — Attorney General Eric Holder intends to examine new state voter ID laws for potential racial bias. Von Spakovsky writes that the allegations of bias are baseless, and there is evidence to prove it. In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. “According to Census Bureau surveys,” von Spakovsky writes, “65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.”

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Read More at The Foundry By Mike Brownfield, The Foundry

My law professor friend is an ardent leftist and Obama supporter. We have exchanged ideas and barbs for over two years. His latest post www.mealsfromthemarketplace.com included in part:

“… the Occupy Wall Street movement might save America from the march toward plutocracy that it has been on for the last thirty years. Properly understood, the Occupy movement is aimed at reining in the excesses of rampant greed in a corporate-dominated capitalist system that has lost its bearings.”

He liked my comments about capitalism but thought I was obsessing too much on the lack of propriety of the OWS crowd vs. TEA Party gatherings… that we must concentrate on substance. It’s just hard to do when one side is screaming epithets and throwing dung.

Cleanliness does make profound impressions. I have several profound memories that give credence to my view (as I sit among piles of paper around my desk):

1. I went to a Catholic Conference in Kansas City in 1975. 25,000 in the Chiefs’ stadium. It was my first experience of the crowd amazing the maintenance crew by leaving the place spotless. All they had to do was empty the trash bins and resupply the restrooms.

 Read More at Coach is Right By Jerry Todd, Coach Is Right

Budgetary meltdowns in states and municipalities throughout 2011 have made one thing abundantly clear: the Blue Model is slowly bankrupting America at all levels of government. It isn’t just rust belt cities with public unions that are feeling the pain: not even the Pentagon is immune. From the New York Times:

Many who are more worried about cuts, including Mr. Panetta, acknowledge that Pentagon personnel costs are unsustainable and that generous retirement benefits may have to be scaled back to save crucial weapons programs.

“If we allow the current trend to continue,” said Arnold L. Punaro, a consultant on a Pentagon advisory group, the Defense Business Board, who has pushed for changes in the military retirement system, “we’re going to turn the Department of Defense into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist.” […]

One independent analyst, Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan policy and research group in Washington, has calculated that if military personnel costs continue rising at the rate they have over the past decade, and overall Pentagon spending does not increase, by 2039 the entire defense budget would be consumed by personnel costs.

The answer, in the Pentagon and elsewhere, can’t just be to cut wages and benefits. There have to be productivity enhancements: municipal governments and the defense bureaucracy have got to get more done with fewer hands. In both kinds of organization the ‘teeth to tail’ ratio is part of the problem: how much of the workforce is getting the mission done as opposed to how much does support and supervision.

Read More at The American Interest By Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest