START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
label:  
  Government & Politics
| track thread
« Back to topics
Obama is afraid of his own soldiers
2 years ago
| Government & Politics

As was made known now by an attentive observer, the Marines during the military parade to the second inauguration of Obama on 21 January had to carry guns without firing pin.

That is, the guns were not ready to fire.

Obviously Obama and his bodyguards in the Secret Service trust no longer the own soldiers and are afraid of an attack from its own ranks.

In fact you can see in the video below and in the photo above the missing firing pin in the gun.

This measure during the ceremony for the inauguration of the President is new because in 2009 the U.S. Navy marching with rifles that worked.


???

2 years ago

'I'd disarm them as well if I was Obama. Simply because they have a duty to protect the USA from all threats, foreign and domestic.  '

- from a comment -

2 years ago

that was weird. I know the Vets did not support Obama during the campaign.
But, they are loyal to the president as he did get elected by the people.
Where is your source on this story?

2 years ago

I found this site and they are investigating the claims. The story was put out there by very right wing sites.


http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/Marines-Parade-Rifles.htm




Lots of right wing sites carry this story who sensationalize all news re: Obama and it gets to be propoganda at its best. I decided on Town Hall which is not as crazy and this is their story:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/02/11/obama-disarmed-marines-for-inaguration-parade-n1509511

This post was modified from its original form on 20 Feb, 6:27
Marines Always Under the Axe
2 years ago

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340520/marines-always-under-axe-alexander-b-gray








When it comes to our national-defense priorities, constrained budgets inevitably encourage strategic myopia and the use of axes over scalpels to make cuts. But no military service is more accustomed to the blow of the budget gnomes’ battle ax than the U.S. Marine Corps, which is forced to justify its existence whenever conflicts end or the nation faces tough economic times. As the Obama administration frantically seeks to wind down America’s commitments in Afghanistan and the Defense Department finds itself disproportionately targeted for spending cuts, the Marines are once again in danger.



The Obama administration’s original $487 billion in Pentagon cuts will eventually reduce the Marines’ strength by 20,000 men. Sequestration, set to take effect on March 1, will force another $40 billion in cuts this year alone. Add to this the very real possibility that Congress will again fund the government through a continuing resolution, extending the previous year’s insufficient funding levels, rather than passing a new budget. While all the military services will be seriously damaged by this perfect storm of poor policy, the Marines will be especially damaged. More than a decade of grueling, constant conflict in unforgiving mountains and deserts has left the Corps with over 60 percent of its equipment requiring substantial repair and reconstitution. Sequestration is poised to cut $854 million, or about 9 percent, from the Marines’ maintenance accounts, with a new continuing resolution further squeezing the Corps.








The Marines’ current predicament has been played out often throughout their 237-year history. Originally employed on Navy warships as military policemen and snipers, the Marines quickly found their niche in amphibious landing. From their first landing on the island of New Providence in the Bahamas during the American Revolution to the Pacific “island hopping” campaigns of World War II, the Marines have played a unique role in projecting American land power in otherwise maritime environments. But the very qualities that have given them a special place in the American popular imagination — ferocity in battle, unquestionable loyalty to mission and country — leave them open to attack from Washington bean-counters and self-interested bureaucrats. In conflicts from World War I to Vietnam, and from the First Gulf War to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Marines have found themselves prized for their fighting qualities but employed as a “second land Army” pursuing decidedly non-amphibious operations. While they’ve been among the most successful practitioners of counterinsurgency, their apparent interchangeability with the Army has left them vulnerable to those seeking savings from the defense budget.



The Marines’ critics have relied on the same lines of attack for years. After World War II, Louis Johnson, President Truman’s defense secretary, argued that the Army had actually conducted a larger share of amphibious landings in the Pacific than the Marines had and that, in any event, the future of warfare made the Marines’ principal mission outdated. Therefore, Johnson (working for the avowedly anti-Marine Truman) concluded that eliminating the Corps entirely would have no serious consequences for U.S. security. Just five years later, Marines under Douglas MacArthur’s command executed one of the most extraordinary amphibious landings of all time at Inchon. But the enduring necessity of an amphibiously oriented specialist force has always seemed to escape policymakers dealing with tough economic times or eager for a peace dividend. The anti-Marine faction is a persistent presence across American military history: On surprisingly numerous occasions it has proposed abolishing the Marines entirely, and at other times it has simply tried to starve the Corps of resources.



The sad irony is that the Marines’ amphibious capabilities are becoming more important, not less. The much-needed pivot to Asia that President Obama seems determined to attempt with a hollowed-out military will require the Marines to return to their amphibious roots; the vast island chains and millions of square miles of ocean of the Asia-Pacific region dictate as much. Furthermore, the Pentagon’s newest doctrine, “Air-Sea Battle,” while seen primarily as a Navy and Air Force strategy, will still require the physical control of territory that only the Marines can provide. This control will most likely be achieved in the same way it has been since the Corps was created nearly two-and-a-half centuries ago: by sending Marines ashore from Navy ships.



But like so many elements of our military, the Navy’s physical capacity to support the Marines’ expeditionary mission has been allowed to atrophy. While the Navy has long maintained that 38 amphibious ships were necessary to support the Marines’ expeditionary mission, it now says they need only 33, and the force currently fields 30. The various auxiliary ships required to support amphibious operations, from mobile-landing platforms to the pre-positioning ships that store the logistical supplies of a Marine expeditionary unit, have also been subject to lowered requirements that remain unmet. In an increasingly Pacific-centric security environment, the Navy and Marine Corps are fielding woefully inadequate amphibious capabilities for the challenges ahead.



Those who would solve our fiscal problems at the expense of our military should remember that politicians have an abysmal track record of anticipating the future of warfare and preparing for it. Harry Truman and Louis Johnson failed to see that the Marines’ amphibious niche would remain essential in the new Cold War era, and today’s Marine antagonists fail to see the
2 years ago

the importance of this core mission in our current security environment. Our political leaders would do well to learn from the misjudgments of their predecessors and remember that a strong America requires a robust expeditionary capability. It requires the U.S. Marine Corps.

— Alexander B. Gray, who writes frequently on naval issues, works on defense policy for the U.S. Congress. The views expressed here are his own.

2 years ago

Obama is in fear that the sequestration will take effect which was a ploy he put in place to control the GOP last year over budgets.

Now, that the sequestration might go into effect he is panicked as this will leave the country vulnerable in the Navy and Marine Corps, two forces which are highly operational in defense.

Obama called a game of bluff and he may lose and this will effect his presidency, the legitimacy of his office as we will be a sitting duck. His policy of diplomatic leading from behind may be his final blow to a failed term as president.

2 years ago

Regarding Panetta incident :

As Gateway Pundit points out, this isn't the first time Marines have been disarmed for an Obama administration event.


“In a sign of the nervousness surrounding Mr. Panetta’s trip, the Marines and other troops who were waiting in a tent for the defense secretary to speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.

“All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied, “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust.”

Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons with them when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent waiting for Mr. Panetta were not armed to begin with, as is typical.”


Again, this is from one source THE GATEWAY PUNDINT.

I would like to have more confirmation on these stories first. That innauguration event with marines totally disarmed is being investigated.

Too many conspiracy theories out there and way too much propoganda.

Judge Napolitano from Fox Business News had a show which was cancelled and he was fired.
He cont. recited that MASSACHUSETTS was more communist than China and we were a commie state; I am sure that was part of his firing as he talked nonsense.

MA is a liberal democrat state but far from being communism.
Scott Brown is now a political pundint on Fox and he is doing investigative reporting for O'Reilly, etc.
MA was brought up last night and he admitted it was liberal democrat but there is a substantial amt. of people here who are conservative.

What bothered me in the last election, Obama was made out to win by larger percentage than he actually did, Ron Paul got a substantial percentage of votes and it was not counted and many assumed it was all for Obama when it was NOT.

Same with all of N.E. states who went heavily for Ron Paul and not Romney but media made it out that Obama won by larger margins by not counting Ron Paul.

Is China more economically free than the USA?
2 years ago
Is The Economy Of China More Free And Capitalist Than That Of US?

There is a big misconception in the United States and around the world that the Economy of the United States is free market capitalist. To believe that the United States has a free market economy is utterly naive and ignorant of economic facts. The interest rates are not a result of demand, supply, and risk but are artificial due to market interference by both the Federal Reserve and the US Government. Major companies are not successful due to their intelligent business practices but because of government contracts they receive, regulation they lobby for, government subsidies they receive, and bailouts that eliminate their risk while compensating for their losses. All these anti-free market variables are not new but have dictated American business for over a century.

>

The anti-free market economy is not the result of one party as both Republicans and Democrats have supported and continue to support legislation that attacks free market principles. Through big government incentives, regulations, subsidies, and bailouts, both parties have destroyed the free market and created an economic mess that rewards financial irresponsibility, creating an environment in which it is difficult for the responsible to compete

>

Even the universally idolized conservative and pro-free market President Ronald Reagan implemented significant anti-free market policies. With his Executive Order 12631 President Reagan ensured that the US does not have a market system based on supply and demand but one that is heavily influenced by Government and the hidden agendae of those who are represented by the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets

.>

It is beyond obvious that the United States does not have a free market and that its economy is not capitalist. Whether “China Does Capitalism Better than America” was debated by Ian Bremmer, Minxin Pei, Orville Schell,a and Peter Schiff in New York during an Intelligent Squared debate hosted by Robert Rosenkranz and moderated by John Donvan.

http://www.wtffinance.com/2012/03/is-the-economy-of-china-more-free-and-capitalist-than-that-of-us/

 

2 years ago

The percentage of that countries GDP that is consumed by the government in China is estimated to be less than 19%.  The USA is above 40%, and is around 43.5% if the deficit spending is removed and the governments "share" of the GDP is re calculated.  The government figure does not include sectors that solely service government.  If that is included, Milton Friedman calculated that in the early 1980's the government was over 50% of the GDP.   Government has grown by over 30% as a calculated percentage of the GDP, so likely government's share has grown to well over 60% of the nations GDP.  And that explains the lack of real growth in the US economy.........and why China's economy is growing so fast in comparison. 

2 years ago

Rove was signed by Fox to contribute as a chief commentator and Scott Brown was just hired as a new one replacing Dick Morris.

Scott Brown is a nice guy and tried his best but MA does not want the GOP representation in the Senate. They put Warren in to go after the banks and Wall st. I suspect she will as she launched the investigation monday. She is not muckracking like Ted Cruz, she is far too smooth.

The tea party gives the GOP a bad name and Ted Cruz will burn up eventually as NO one will take him serously. He is ugly looking but looks should not matter.

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.
 
site feedback

ONSITE FEEDBACK FORM

Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!