Sunday, June 25, 2017


by -
Skipper! Turn the boat around!

A new report from Defense News states the a US aircraft carrier was actually sailing away from the Sea of Japan when the White House announced that it was headed for that location, last week,

In what the White House claimed to be a move to act as a deterrent to North Korea’s recent missile tests and provocations, the US Navy announced on April 09, that the Carl Vinson Strike Group will not make its regularly scheduled trip to Australia and instead, head towards the western Pacific Ocean.

However, The New York Times noted on Tuesday, that the Navy posted a picture dated April 15, showing the strike group in the Sunda Strait, an area thousands of miles away from North Korea off the coast of Indonesia.

At the time, comments from administration officials and spokesmen seemed to contradict each other over the exact reason the strike group was sent towards the Korean Peninsula. During a White House press briefing last week, Sean Spicer, when asked about the decision to send the strike force to North Korea, claimed the move to be a deterrent.

“A carrier group is several things. The forward deployment is deterrence, presence. It’s prudent. But it does a lot of things. It ensures our — we have the strategic capabilities, and it gives the president options in the region,” he said.

“But I think when you see a carrier group steaming into an area like that, the forward presence of that is clearly, through almost every instance, a huge deterrence. So I think it serves multiple capabilities.

Meanwhile, on another press briefing the same day, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned against assuming any “specific reason” for the move.

“There’s not a specific demand signal or specific reason we are sending her up there,” Mattis said of the Vinson.

“She’s stationed there in the western Pacific for a reason. She operates freely up and down the Pacific, and she’s just on her way up there because that’s where we thought it was most prudent to have her at this time.”

The Carl Vinson Strike group is now headed for the Korean Peninsula and will reach the area by the end of the month, the Defense Department told the Times.

by -
Droppin da bomb!

Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.) declared on Sunday that numerous previous military actions to protect Americans and American interests were illegal.

Arguing that Trump should have obtained approval from the Congress before authorizing the strikes, Kaine condemned President Donald Trump’s decision to attack the Shayrat airfield in Syria, in retaliation to the Assad regime’s use of banned chemical weapons on Syrian citizens.

“Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd sought explanation from Kaine on his stance and asked him about prior cases in American history similar to last week’s.

“Senator, in this case it’s very limited, number one. And number two, there were American interests on the ground, we have U.S. soldiers, special operations forces that are on the ground very close to chemical weapons,” Todd said. “If you’re saying this action was illegal, then you must be thinking that the Libya action by President Obama was illegal, Grenada by President Reagan, that was illegal. Are you saying that all of those actions were illegal?”

Surprisingly, Kaine replied with a “Yes” to all of Todd’s examples.

Kaine replied that he had rejected former President Barack Obama’s decision of firing missiles at air defense targets belonging to the Libyan forces commanded by then-dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

“I agreed with the Republicans in the House that rebuked President Obama and said he exceeded his authority because the U.S. wasn’t under imminent threat,” he said. “That’s the only circumstance where a Commander in Chief can use article two power without going to Congress, if there’s an imminent threat to the United States.”

Conservative icon, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote on Monday that “Trump’s missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.

Former President Ronald Reagan also invaded Grenada in order to protect Americans on the island, during rising pressure from communist forces in 1983.

As American’s were attending a school in Grenada, it was arguable that the use of force fell within the legal guidelines that within the War Powers Resolution.

The resolution states that Armed Forces can only be sent into action through a Declaration of War, “statutory authorization, or in the case of “a national emergency created by attack upon United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

The chemical attack that occurred in Syria did not fall within those three requirements and Constitutional experts state that Trump was required to obtain an “Authorization for the Use of Military Force.”

Trump is not the first president to use military force in violation of the Constitution. John Adams started a war with France without Congressional approval and even Thomas Jefferson took on the Barbary pirates without consulting Congress.

by -
Do we really need another war?

The Trump Administration has rattled the sabre several times over the last several weeks in regards to North Korea.

The Hermit Nation of course, is in a constant state of provocation as that’s what the dictatorship needs to maintain absolute control of its people.

The latest talk of war comes from former Marine Corps General and Trump Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

Mattis recently told the media, “Right now, [North Korea] appears to be going in a very reckless manner . . . and that has got to be stopped.”

Past administrations have sought to appease North Korean (DPRK) leaders with pay offs through the United Nations.

The UN is currently seeking $114 million in aide to the DPRK to help with a flood disaster.

Given budget cuts all around, it’s unlikely the Trump administration would agree to fund any portion of grants to North Korea, instead, Trump is signaling pre-emptive action.

Earlier in the month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted as saying, “The policy of strategic patience has ended . . . if they elevate the threat of their weapons program to a level that we believe requires action, then that option’s on the table.”

North Korea has a history of taking pre-emptive action of it’s own when threatened.

Leading up to the Korean War, the South Korean President, Syngman Rhee, opened called for an invasion of North Korea and bragged that the communist nation could be overrun in three days. Rhee’s general, Syn Sung Mo, announced his army was on stand by for the push across the 38th parallel.

After a massive about of saber-rattling of their own, South Korean leaders where surprised when the North took action first and rolled their tanks across the line.

Some argue that Trump officials are repeating history and positioning the United States to go to war again on the Korean peninsula.

If North Korea were to be left alone and ignored from a global perspective, would they see the United States as a threat worth engaging?

Is America prepared to fight another war when already engaged with ISIS round the world?

Comment below.

by -

Tensions with Russia are heating up and this week they took a very dangerous step in letting us know they are serious.

A Russian fighter jet flew within ten feet of a U.S. Navy spy plane over the Black sea.

The jet carried out a maneuver called an intercept to harass and redirect the spy plane.

An official spoke on the condition of anonymity about the incident and said that the event lasted roughly 19 minutes.

He also said the maneuver was “unsafe and unprofessional”.

This is just the latest in several aggressions toward our military around the world.

Iran has been doing similar maneuvers with boats in the Persian Gulf.

A situation is escalating with Russia that is hard to deny at this point. Every day, it seems like, the government is telling us that Russia is hacking our systems and threatening our elections.

Now they are actually threatening American lives with such reckless and dangerous military actions.

All of this comes on the heels of a rough meeting between Putin and Obama in China for the G20 summit over last week that sparked a lot of comments on Twitter.

Obama and Hillary Clinton designed a new “Russian Reset” back when Obama first took office.

It is safe to say that no matter how much the Democrats try and tie the Russian problems to Donald Trump, they only have themselves to blame.

What do you think about the actions of Russia and the failed “Russian reset”? Let us know in the comments below.


Guarding Republicans

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives...