HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL U.S. TROOPS EVERYWHERE (THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE)

Happy Thanksgiving To Our Troops!

May the Good LORD Bless & Protect All U.S. Troops on this Family Holiday!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE

CHUCK HAGEL RESIGNS: DEAR GOD WHAT ABOUT THE U.S. TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN?? (FERGUSON VERDICT)

CHUCK HAGEL RESIGNS: DEAR GOD WHAT ABOUT THE U.S. TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN??

IS HAGEL'S RESIGNATION BEING USED TO DEFLECT FROM FERGUSON VERDICT??

#justiceforMikeBrown


Effective today the U.S. Secretary of Defense CHUCK HAGEL has Resigned.

This news comes immediately after Pres OBAMA signed a New Agreement with AFGHANISTAN to keep U.S. Troops in that region longer than expected.

This news also comes on the heels of a very Shaky Nuclear Bomb Deal with IRAN.

And last but certainly not least, this news comes as ISIS continues to wreak Havoc in IRAQ, while Beheading U.S. Citizens and CHRISTIANS.

According to earlier LEAKS from the WASHINGTON POST, reports of HAGEL submitting his Official Resignation actually occurred back in September 2014.

Has anyone other than myself notice how Pres OBAMA stands in very close proximity of each member of his Administration and GLARES at them as they deliver their Public Resignations??

This includes JAY CARNEY, KATHLEEN SEBELLIUS AND ERIC HOLDER.

Has anyone other than myself also noticed how Media reports of HAGEL'S Resignation is now drowning out what's going on in FERGUSON, Missouri as it relates to the Murder of MICHAEL BROWN and Officer DARREN WILSON'S Indictment or Dismissal of Charges?

HAGEL'S Resignation could be a Media and Federal Gov't Ploy used to Deflect a Grand Jury Verdict of Dismissing all Charges against DARREN WILSON, and using U.S. Military Troops to Murder more Hurting, Oppressive BLACK People in FERGUSON.

Is this a Coincidence??

I think NOT!

Considering what happened to Ambassador CHRISTOPHER STEVENS at BENGHAZI in 2012, news of HAGEL'S Resignation is Bad News!

Is it possible CHRISTOPHER STEVENS was preparing to Resign too when he was MURDERED by AL QAEDA on September 11, 2012??

Will HAGEL be replaced by another U.S. Military Veteran who understands what it means to Serve their country as a Member of the U.S.Armed Forces, or by a Civilian who has NO Knowledge of what it really means to ever Serve in COMBAT while protecting the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA??

I don't know but GOD knows.

In fact GOD knows the Whole TRUTH about EVERYTHING and Nothing but the TRUTH!

I will continue to Trust in GOD and PRAY Psalms 91 & Isaiah 54:17 constantly over U.S. Troops currently serving all over the Globe.

I will continue to PRAY for the people of FERGUSON and for MICHAEL BROWN'S grieving Family.

"For He shall give His Angels charge over you,
To keep you in all your ways."

"No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,
Says the Lord."


Article Sources: ABC News; Bloomberg News; CNN; NY Times; Washington Post; Youtube

ARTICLE: "Hagel Submits Resignation as Defense Chief Under Pressure"

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel handed in his resignation on Monday, the first cabinet-level casualty of the collapse of President Obama’s Democratic majority in the Senate and the struggles of his national security team to respond to an onslaught of global crises.

In announcing Mr. Hagel’s resignation from the State Dining Room on Monday, the president, flanked by Mr. Hagel and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., called Mr. Hagel critical to ushering the military “through a significant period of transition” and lauded “a young Army sergeant from Vietnam who rose to serve as America’s 24th secretary of defense.”

Mr. Obama called Mr. Hagel “no ordinary secretary of defense,” adding that he had “been in the dirt” of combat like no other defense chief. He said that Mr. Hagel would remain in the job until his successor is confirmed by the Senate.

Administration officials said that Mr. Obama made the decision to remove Mr. Hagel, the sole Republican on his national security team, last Friday after a series of meetings between the two men over the past two weeks.

The officials characterized the decision as a recognition that the threat from the militant group Islamic State will require different skills from those that Mr. Hagel, who often struggled to articulate a clear viewpoint and was widely viewed as a passive defense secretary, was brought in to employ.

Mr. Hagel, a combat veteran who was skeptical about the Iraq war, came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestrations.

Now, however, the American military is back on a war footing, although it is a modified one. Some 3,000 American troops are being deployed in Iraq to help the Iraqi military fight the Sunni militants of the Islamic State, even as the administration struggles to come up with, and articulate, a coherent strategy to defeat the group in both Iraq and Syria.

“The next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that the defense secretary initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.

But Mr. Hagel’s aides had maintained in recent weeks that he expected to serve the full four years as defense secretary. His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Even before the announcement of Mr. Hagel’s removal, Obama officials were speculating on his possible replacement. At the top of the list were Michèle A. Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense, and Ashton B. Carter, a former deputy secretary of defense.

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a former officer with the Army’s 82nd Airborne, was also considered to be a contender, but a spokesman said that the senator was not in the running. “Senator Reed loves his job and does not wish to be considered for secretary of defense or any other cabinet post,” the spokesman said.

Mr. Hagel, a respected former senator who struck a friendship with Mr. Obama when they were both critics of the Iraq war from positions on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has nonetheless had trouble penetrating the tight team of former campaign aides and advisers who form Mr. Obama’s closely knit set of loyalists. Senior administration officials have characterized him as quiet during cabinet meetings; Mr. Hagel’s defenders said that he waited until he was alone with the president before sharing his views, the better to avoid leaks.

Whatever the case, Mr. Hagel struggled to fit in with Mr. Obama’s close circle and was viewed as never gaining traction in the administration after a bruising confirmation fight among his old Senate colleagues, during which he was criticized for seeming tentative in his responses to sharp questions.

He never really shed that pall after arriving at the Pentagon, and in the past few months he has largely ceded the stage to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who officials said initially won the confidence of Mr. Obama with his recommendation of military action against the Islamic State.

In Mr. Hagel’s less than two years on the job, his detractors said he struggled to inspire confidence at the Pentagon in the manner of his predecessors, especially Robert M. Gates. But several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers over the past few months have also acknowledged privately that the president did not want another high-profile defense secretary in the mold of Mr. Gates, who went on to write a memoir of his years with Mr. Obama in which he sharply criticized the president. Mr. Hagel, they said, in many ways was exactly the kind of defense secretary whom the president, after battling the military during his first term, wanted.

Mr. Hagel, for his part, spent his time on the job largely carrying out Mr. Obama’s stated wishes on matters like bringing back American troops from Afghanistan and trimming the Pentagon budget, with little pushback. He did manage to inspire loyalty among enlisted soldiers and often seemed at his most confident when talking to troops or sharing wartime experiences as a Vietnam veteran.

But Mr. Hagel has often had problems articulating his thoughts — or administration policy — in an effective manner, and has sometimes left reporters struggling to describe what he has said in news conferences. In his side-by-side appearances with both General Dempsey and Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the first former enlisted combat soldier to be defense secretary, has often been upstaged.

He raised the ire of the White House in August as the administration was ramping up its strategy to fight the Islamic State, directly contradicting the president, who months before had likened the Sunni militant group to a junior varsity basketball squad. Mr. Hagel, facing reporters in his now-familiar role next to General Dempsey, called the Islamic State an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding, “This is beyond anything that we’ve seen.”

White House officials later said they viewed those comments as unhelpful, although the administration still appears to be struggling to define just how large is the threat posed by the Islamic State.



ARTICLE: "Defense Secretary Hagel, Under Pressure, Submits Resignation"

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel submitted his resignation Monday, bowing to pressure from the White House to step down after less than two years in the job in what could portend a broader shake-up among President Obama’s national security team.

Hagel resigned after holding a series of discussions with Obama and other White House officials in recent weeks. A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama and Hagel “both determined that it was time for new leadership at the Pentagon.”

Hagel will remain as defense secretary until Obama can pick a replacement, who must also be confirmed by the Senate. Possible contenders include Michele Flournoy and Ashton Carter, former high-ranking defense officials during Obama’s first term who were passed over for the top job in favor of Hagel two years ago.

Obama formally announced the resignation in a late-morning appearance at the White House. Flanked by Vice President Biden, he praised Hagel’s service, listed a series of accomplishments and said he appreciated Hagel’s role as an adviser who has “always given it to me straight.”

Hagel, in brief remarks, said that serving as defense secretary “has been the greatest privilege of my life.” But neither he nor Obama gave a reason for the resignation.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is slated to take over as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, said that Hagel “was frustrated with aspects of the administration’s national security policy and decision-making process,” citing “excessive micro-management” on the part of the White House.

McCain noted that Hagel’s predecessors as defense secretary — Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta — had both likewise complained in their memoirs about excessive political interference from White House aides. “Ultimately, the President needs to realize that the real source of his current failures on national security more often lie with his Administration’s misguided policies and the role played by his White House in devising and implementing them,” he said.

When Obama nominated Hagel in January 2013, the president was intent on limiting defense spending, winding down the war in Afghanistan and keeping the military out of conflicts in the Middle East. He made clear that he was picking the decorated Vietnam War combat veteran in large part because Hagel understood “that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that’s something we only do when it’s absolutely necessary.”

Since then, however, Obama has reluctantly been dragged back into the Middle East, signing deployment orders to send as many as 2,900 troops to Iraq to serve as advisers in the fight against the Islamic State.

Hagel has been a quiet figure in that debate as the administration has struggled to articulate a strategy for defeating Islamic State and stabilizing Iraq and Syria, largely ceding the stage to other figures such as Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Rumors had intensified this month that Hagel’s time was short, though the former Republican senator from Nebraska has insisted in recent interviews that he was planning to stay at the Pentagon. The resignation was first reported by The New York Times.

A senior administration official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama initiated discussions with Hagel about leaving in October — shortly before the mid-term congressional elections that saw the president’s party take a beating.

Hagel never quite recovered from a stumbling performance during his confirmation process that led the Senate to approve his nomination by a narrow 58-41 vote in February 2013. The margin was exceptionally narrow, especially given the fact that he had served two terms in the Senate. Only four GOP senators voted for their fellow Republican.

Hagel served in the Senate with Obama and the two bonded during overseas trips, where both were leading critics of the Iraq war during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Unlike Panetta and Gates, Hagel in public was generally accepting of the White House’s push to keep a lid on defense spending, which had soared after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

He was most visible in supporting Obama’s strategic “pivot” to Asia, taking numerous trips to visit allies in that part of the world. But his time spent in Asia came at the expense of making his presence felt in the Middle East and Afghanistan, which continued to dominate the national security agenda despite the White House’s desire to wind down U.S. military involvement in the region.

This month, for instance, Hagel was scheduled to travel to Burma and Vietnam, where Pentagon officials were eager to make a show of his return to the country where he fought the Viet Cong as a young infantryman and was badly wounded in battle, twice.

He was forced to postpone the visit three weeks ago, a decision that the Pentagon attributed to “new and significant demands being placed” on his schedule, including a congressional hearing on the war against the Islamic State. At the time, Hagel’s aides denied the decision was a sign that he had fallen out of favor with the White House, insisting that he looked forward to rescheduling the visit.

Hagel was known to have had a tense relationship with Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, but defense officials said he tried to develop close ties with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. Hagel and McDonough met once a week, in addition to Hagel’s weekly one-on-one meetings with Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Defense officials described Hagel as much more focused more on policy - his reform initiatives and the Pentagon budget - than on military operations in places like Iraq and Syria. His hands-off approach to battlefield operations is a sharp contrast to some earlier secretaries, such as Donald Rumsfeld.

That may have contributed to a view among some senior uniformed leaders of Hagel as a lackluster leader. One defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said many in the military saw the Nebraskan as “a perfectly acceptable but certainly not exciting” manager.

Pentagon Recommends Combat Zone Pay Cut For Enlisted Troops! Are You Kidding Me? That Is Wrong!

Choosing to cut Combat Zone Pay for Enlisted Soldiers who already earn way too little for their Duty, is just plain WRONG!

Such a Pay cut will cause many Military Families to be Financially Deprived, go Hungry & some to be Evicted or Suffer Foreclosures.

Congress Needs to get its Act together because America's Enlisted Troops deserve a Pay Increase NOT a Severe Pay Cut.

Especially NOT a Pay Cut that will Adversely Impact the Families of Enlisted Troops.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Review recommends combat pay be based on level of danger

The days of American troops living on luxurious bases, hanging out at the coffee shop, attending dance parties and still earning full combat pay may be coming to an end.

The Pentagon is considering changes to combat pay that could result in a tiered system, based on how much danger the service member is actually in.

The new recommendations come from an independent review ordered by President Barack Obama in 2010, the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation.

The review concluded that "the relationship between combat compensation and the degree of danger to which a member is exposed has eroded."

In fact, the reviewers found evidence that troops exposed to the most danger in many cases were receiving the smallest benefit.

"Linking reward to risk is the principal justification for combat compensation," the review stated.

A major problem with the current combat pay system is its relationship to the IRS tax code.

Service members in combat zones are allowed to exclude income for tax purposes. The report found that junior members, especially those with with families, have little income and pay little in income taxes. Therefore, income exclusion gives them very little benefit.

More senior enlisted troops can exclude their income and receive a greater tax benefit. Officers can exclude nearly $7,800 a month during the time they are deployed to a combat zone.

The report concluded that this exclusion gives the greatest benefit to more highly ranked service members, even though they may be much farther from actual danger than lower-ranking troops.

The report recommends that combat pay be restructured "so that those who are exposed to the greatest danger receive higher compensation, regardless of grade." It recommends replacing the income exclusion with a tax credit.

The reviewers also recommend increasing "hostile fire pay" so that it surpasses "imminent danger pay." Both award troops $225 a month, but "hostile fire" indicates an area where troops could be exposed to enemy fire, whereas "imminent danger" is simply presence in a combat zone.

As part of its findings, the report cited a 2011 opinion piece in the Washington Post in which Capt. Michael Cummings wrote, "I didn't deserve my combat pay."

Cummings described the living conditions at Victory Base Complex in Iraq, "The water was always warm. The chow hall had a Caesar salad bar, a sandwich bar, an ice cream freezer, and shrimp & steak Fridays. My personal room had a working air conditioning unit and internet connection.

VBC hosted multiple PXs, coffee shops and nightly dance parties. I could buy pillows, microwaves, televisions or any video game."

Defense Department officials are still reviewing the results and have yet to make final decisions on whether to adopt the changes.

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said, "We'll review the QRMC recommendations. The recommendations do not convey the department's official position but rather provide alternatives for the department to consider."

Nations such as Japan, Germany and Australia already have a risk-based tier system of pay.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Leaks From The Obama White House Threatens National Security & U.S. Troops: STOP THE LEAKS!

Do I believe over a period of 3 1/2 years that an unprecedented number of Serious Leaks of Highly Classified Federal Information have come from the White House?

YES! I Do!

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out where these damaging leaks originate.
They're coming from the White House plain & simple!

While its true NO White House Administration has ever operated without Leaks, this string of Seriously Damaging Leaks from 2009 to 2012 are much more frequent than usual.

I've long Suspected ever since the Underwear Bomber incident, that Information being leaked to Media Sources was coming directly from the White House.

Such Extremely Sensitive Highly Classified Information could NOT have come from Congress Members or lower level White House Employees.

It had to come from ONLY those Executive Employees closest to Pres. Obama.

Thus the Information is coming from someone within Pres. Obama's Inner Circle.

The Leaks may be helping Pres. Obama politically but its Hurting America's National & International Security.

These Leaks are also putting our Troops in Danger & hurting our Relationships with other World Leaders.

They need to STOP!

Immediately!

PLEASE STOP THE LEAKS!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FBI investigating 'specific' White House leaks about hacking attacks on Iran

The FBI is looking into what is believed to be leaks of top secret details about cyberattacks against Iran, as the White House and GOP trade barbs over the release of sensitive national security data.

The tense sparring underscored how the handling of classified information and national security has suddenly escalated into a presidential campaign-season issue, like no time in recent memory.

Georgia Sen Saxby Chambliss, one of the Republicans leading the charge against the Obama administration regarding the leaks, told CNN that the FBI investigation has begun.

In a joint statement to the network from the leadership of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, lawmakers said: 'In recent weeks, we have become increasingly concerned at the continued leaks regarding sensitive intelligence programs and activities, including specific details of sources and methods.'

The statement came from Sen Chambliss; Sen Dianne Feinstein of California; Rep Mike Rogers of Michigan and Rep C.A. 'Dutch' Ruppersberger, of Maryland.
The statement went on: "These disclosures have seriously interfered with ongoing intelligence programs and have put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act in the future.

'Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide.'

The group also announced a news conference on the subject for Thursday.

Meanwhile, the White House and Republican Sen John McCain of Arizona, were embroiled in a war of words yesterday, as each side accused the other of being 'grossly irresponsible' in connection with leaks of national security data.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denied allegations made by McCain a day earlier that the apparent leaks by administration officials must have been politically motivated to boost President Obama's stature ahead of his attempted re-election this fall.

McCain fired back with a heated statement repeating his suspicions, declaring 'this is not a game' and 'laws have apparently been broken.'

He called for prosecution of whoever is responsible for the leaks, which have included information about a U.S. cyber warfare program aimed at thwarting Iran's nuclear program.

Congressional intelligence chiefs also expressed deep unease about the recent leaks and said they would press the Obama administration to investigate, as well as considering how laws could be strengthened to stop it happening again.

'The accelerating pace of such disclosures, the sensitivity of the matters in question, and the harm caused to our national security interests is alarming and unacceptable,' the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees from both political parties said in a statement.

'These disclosures have seriously interfered with ongoing intelligence programs and have put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act in the future,' the lawmakers said.

McCain, who challenged Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign, took to the Senate floor on Wednesday along with Chambliss to call for a special counsel to investigate the recent string of leaks, saying they appeared to have been made for political advantage.

The leaks have included detailed reports on a classified counterterrorism 'kill list' of militants targeted in drone strikes, and an undercover investigation targeted on Yemen-based militants involved in building underwear bombs designed to foil airport security.

Carney, on Obama's plane on a flight to San Francisco on Wednesday, said the administration 'takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counter terrorism or intelligence operations.'

'Any suggestion that this administration has authorized intentional leaks of classified information for political gain is grossly irresponsible.'

'No, what is grossly irresponsible is U.S. officials divulging some of the most highly classified programs involving the most important national security priorities facing our nation today,' McCain shot back in his statement.



McCain doubles down on leak inquiry

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who charged members of Obama administration of leaking classified information for political gain, Wednesday called those who leaked the info "grossly irresponsible," using the same words that White House spokesperson Jay Carney levied at McCain.
Earlier in the day, Carney told reporters, "Any suggestion that this administration has authorized intentional leaks of classified info for political gain is grossly irresponsible," Carney said.

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, fired back: "No, what is grossly irresponsible is U.S. officials divulging some of the most highly classified programs involving the most important national security priorities facing our nation today."

McCain first called attention to the issue with a fiery speech on the Senate floor Tuesday evening, pointing to a new book by New York Times journalist David Sanger that reveals U.S.-Israeli cybercampaigns used against Iran.

McCain charged members of the administration with leaking classified information and called for an investigation by a special counsel. He also called for people to be prosecuted if guilt is found. His Democratic counterpart on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., agreed to hold a hearing to investigate.

"It is difficult to escape the conclusion that these recent leaks of highly classified information, all of which have the effect of making the President look strong and decisive on national security in the middle of his re-election campaign, have a deeper political motivation," Mcain said.

McCain added: "Over the course of these congressional hearings and other investigations, I would hope that the motivations for these leaks is fully examined and discussed. These leaks clearly were not done in the interest of national security or to reveal corrupt or illegal actions about which the public has a right to know, as in the case of legitimate whistleblowers."

A bipartisan group of lawmakers that lead the House and Senate intelligence committees also expressed concern, calling possible leaks "unacceptable."

"In recent weeks, we have become increasingly concerned at the continued leaks regarding sensitive intelligence programs and activities, including specific details of sources and methods. The accelerating pace of such disclosures, the sensitivity of the matters in question, and the harm caused to our national security interests is alarming and unacceptable," Sens. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. and Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.

The four members of the intelligence committees also called the leaks "damaging and intolerable." They plan to modify and strengthen legislation regarding leaks. "We believe that significant changes are needed, in legislation, in the culture of the agencies that deal with classified information, in punishing leaks, and in the level of leadership across the government to make clear that these types of disclosures will not stand," the lawmakers said in the statement.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Daily Mail, Fox News, Youtube

Gay Marriage Loses In North Carolina! Pat McCrory Will Be The Next NC Governor! Hallejuah!

]










‎"I Am Evolving".

Yesterday Millions of North Carolina Residents Voted in the 2012 Primary races.

There were 4 Ballots for NC Voters to choose from:

Democrat
Republican
Liberterian
Non-Partisan

Here's how I Voted in North Carolina's Primary Tuesday & Why.

Although I am an Registered Independent Voter, at the Polls I had to choose a Party.

I chose the Democratic Party Ballot so I could Support Barack Obama's re-election.

I also Supported Joel Ford for Congress NOT Mel Watt! NOT Mel Watt!

And Pat Cotham for the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners.

That's IT!

I repeat: That's IT!

And of Course I Voted in Favor of BLOCKING Gay Marriage & the Legalization of Shacking Up (Domestic Partners) in the State of North Carolina.

However..........

Several people from My Family and....

More than 200 People from My Church Voted for Pat McCrory (NC Governor) & in Favor of BLOCKING Gay Marriage & the Legalization of Shacking Up (Domestic Partners) in the State of North Carolina.

How will I Vote in November in the General Election?

I am "Evolving" but I will Most Certainly Support Pat McCory for North Carolina Governor without a Doubt! NO Questions Asked!

Let's Just say that since I DID Support Barack Obama in the 2012 North Carolina Primary, I Expect a Good Return on My Investment.

Last week a BLACK U.S. Army Soldier from Charlotte, NC was Killed in Afghanistan by an IED. He was just 34 Years old & was Stationed at Fort Drum in New York.

Pres. Obama Please Protect & Bring Our Troops home from Afghanistan. Please Sir.

One more thing......

Hundreds of Thousands of BLACK NC Voters Approved the Amendment to BLOCK Gay Marriage.

Why?

Because BLACK People Need JOBS & Small Businesses to Create JOBS NOT Gay Marriage!

Peace.


Amendment One: N.C. voters approve measure to block same-sex marriage


Riding a Bible-influenced coalition that cut across political and racial lines, the marriage amendment stormed to approval Tuesday, making North Carolina the latest state to put stronger legal barricades before same-sex unions.

With 90 percent of the counties reporting, the constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman the “only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” won resoundingly, 61 percent to 39 percent.

It goes into effect Jan. 1. North Carolina has had a law banning same-sex marriages for 16 years.

Turnout, fueled largely by the marriage debate, was the largest for a primary in decades, election officials said.

“This was an issue of standing on the principle of God’s word that marriage is between one man and one woman, and I believe that message has gotten across,” said the Rev. Mark Harris, pastor of First Baptist Church of Charlotte and a leader in the state campaign for passage.

North Carolina becomes the last Southern state – and the 31st overall – to pass a “defense of marriage” amendment. Such measures have yet to lose. Eight states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Opponents of the N.C. amendment called it a threat on a variety of fronts, from domestic-violence protection and health benefits for unmarried families, to industrial recruitment and job retention.

But for most voters, Tuesday’s decision appeared to be a referendum on gay marriage.

“The pro side could have not spent a single dollar, and they would have still won by double digits,” said Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling in Raleigh.

Duke law professor Mike Munger said the amendment’s real impact might not be known for months.

“The screaming, excruciating paradox of all this is that supporters wanted to take this out of the judges’ hands. Clearly it will have the opposite effect,” Munger said. “…There will be litigation, and judges will have to decide what the darn thing means.”

The amendment lost in the state’s largest areas, including Charlotte, Greensboro, Asheville, Raleigh and Durham. But it ran strongly almost everywhere else.

The Rev. Robin Tanner of Charlotte, a leader in the effort to defeat the amendment, looked beyond Tuesday’s loss.

“Hope lives on in this place we all call home,” the pastor of Piedmont Unitarian Universalist Church said in a prepared statement. “Hope is our promised companion, and equality for all our promised land.”

Added the Rev. Murdoch Smith, pastor of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church: “The goal is not destroyed, just delayed for the moment.”

Conservative voting bloc united

In passing the amendment, many conservatives and African-Americans set political differences aside to vote along spiritual lines. Conservative Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God as a cornerstone of life.

In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the strongest support came from the predominantly white suburban areas of Mint Hill and Matthews. Across town, voters in the African-American neighborhoods of Coulwood and Paw Creek voted almost 2 to 1 in favor. The margin was the same in predominantly black precinct 79 near Charlotte Douglas International Airport.

While the NAACP campaigned hard against the amendment, many black voters continued to see same-sex marriage not as a civil rights issue, but as a lifestyle choice with which they don’t agree.

“This amendment has always been about one thing and one thing only, marriage and family,” said Bishop Phillip Davis, pastor of Nations Ford Community Church, a black congregation in southwest Charlotte. “The voters of North Carolina have chosen to protect the soul of the state and the nation; that is marriage and family.”

The campaigns were fueled by more than $3 million in spending. With Charlotte hosting the convention to renominate him this fall, President Barack Obama called for the amendment’s defeat. Around Charlotte, prominent Republicans such as former mayor and gubernatorial candidate Richard Vinroot spoke out against it.

“But it never extended to rank-and-file GOP voters,” pollster Jensen said. “This never got beyond the point of ‘Do I like gay marriage or not?’ ”

Last week, evangelist Billy Graham endorsed the measure, and the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte and Raleigh made $50,000 donations.

Charlotte area voters didn’t necessarily follow party affiliations in taking sides on the amendment.

At the Forest Hill Church precinct in south Charlotte, Democrat Don Hawley, 57, voted in favor. “I don’t know that we need to start protecting another class of citizens,” he said.

Mary Settlemyre, 49, a Republican, voted no. “My understanding of the Republican Party is it’s limited in your personal life,” she said. “That (intrudes) in the parts of your personal life they need not be in.”

College counselor Catherine Odum, a Democrat, also voted against, saying, “I don’t understand why allowing gay marriage hurts marriage between men and women.”

A national shift

Nationwide, attitudes appear to be changing on same-sex marriage. Polls show that younger voters strongly support giving gays the same opportunities as straight couples, and the opposition of older voters appears to be softening.

House Speaker Thom Tillis, leader of the Republican majority in Raleigh that put the measure on the ballot, said earlier in the campaign that he expects the N.C. measure to be reversed in the next generation because of changing attitudes.

And while North Carolina passed the measure convincingly, it did so by a lesser margin than many of its Southern neighbors. In 2006, 78 percent of S.C. voters supported their amendment. Elsewhere the endorsements ranged from 86 percent in Mississippi to 57 percent in Virginia.

In November, Minnesota voters will decide their own marriage amendment. In Maine, residents will decide whether to rescind their 2009 same-sex ban.

A year ago, Lisa Macdonald of Charlotte was among a group of local same-sex couples who went to Washington, D.C., to be married by their pastors and rabbis.

She later volunteered to work in the campaign to defeat the amendment. She said Tuesday’s vote is a setback for her native state.

“With this amendment, we have written discrimination into our constitution,” she said. “It’s not the end of the conversation.”

Harris, though, said the issue has never been about discrimination.

“I believe North Carolinians took the took the amendment at face value, and they voted as such,” he said. “The only winner tonight is marriage.”


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CBS News, McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, WRAL, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Visits Afghanistan To Sign 10-Yr Agreement; Romney & McCain Approve

Transcript: Obama hails 'light of a new day' in Afghanistan

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than 7,000 miles from home, but for over a decade it has been close to our hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed an historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries -- a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Tonight, I'd like to speak to you about this transition. But first, let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe-haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

And so, ten years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe havens in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda's extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban's momentum. We've built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated al Qaeda's leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

The goal that I set -- to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild -- is within reach.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. But tonight, I'd like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

First, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in places where Afghan security forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

Second, we are training Afghan security forces to get the job done. Those forces have surged, and will peak at 352,000 this year. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

Third, we are building an enduring partnership. The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions.

It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans -- men and women, boys and girls.

Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

Fourth, we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban.

We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban -- from foot soldiers to leaders -- have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan security forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

Fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan, and for Afghanistan's future. I have made it clear to Afghanistan's neighbor -- Pakistan -- that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions.

In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

As we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm time line. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America's image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that. Afghans want to fully assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. That requires a clear time line to wind down the war.

Others will ask why we don't leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more. And as commander in chief, I refuse to let that happen.

I recognize that many Americans are tired of war. As president, nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the fallen, or looking in the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. I will not keep Americans in harm's way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. But we must finish the job we started in Afghanistan and end this war responsibly.

My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm's way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

This future is only within reach because of our men and women in uniform. Time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. In an age when so many institutions have come up short, these Americans stood tall. They met their responsibilities to one another, and the flag they serve under. I just met with some of them, and told them that as commander in chief, I could not be prouder. In their faces, we see what is best in ourselves and our country.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and civilians in Afghanistan have done their duty. Now, we must summon that same sense of common purpose. We must give our veterans and military families the support they deserve, and the opportunities they have earned. And we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice.

As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live free from fear and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.

Here, in Afghanistan, Americans answered the call to defend their fellow citizens and uphold human dignity. Today, we recall the fallen, and those who suffer wounds seen and unseen. But through dark days we have drawn strength from their example, and the ideals that have guided our nation and lit the world: a belief that all people are created equal, and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny.

That is the light that guides us still. This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end. With faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand, and forge a just and lasting peace. May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.


Romney Praises Obama’s Afghanistan Visit

Putting aside recent political battles over last year’s Osama Bin Laden raid, Mitt Romney issued a statement praising President Obama’s visit to Afghanistan on Tuesday and echoed his commitment to preventing Al Qaeda from re-establishing a foothold in the wartorn nation.

His statement, in full:

“I am pleased that President Obama has returned to Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve to hear from our President about what is at stake in this war. Success in Afghanistan is vital to our nation’s security. It would be a tragedy for Afghanistan and a strategic setback for America if the Taliban returned to power and once again created a sanctuary for terrorists. We tolerated such a sanctuary until we lost thousands on September 11, 2001. Many brave Americans have sacrificed everything so that we could win this fight for a more secure future. Let us honor the memory of the fallen, not only by keeping them in our daily thoughts but also by staying true to their commitment. We are united as one nation in our gratitude to our country’s heroes.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, TPM, Google Maps

Robert Bales & Abel Gutierrez Being Unfairly Judged By Media: PTSD & War Vets

I am Not Opposed to War.
Instead I am Opposed to Unnecessary Wars. i.e., Iraq & Afghanistan, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs.

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales served in Iraq & Afghanistan. He Suffered from Severe PTSD as a Result of 4 Deployments, Brain & Foot Injuries. Part of his foot had to be amputated.

It is believed Bales recently Killed 16 Afghan Civilians while on Duty at an Outpost Base in Afghanistan.

Abel Gutierrez was also an Iraq War Veteran. He also Suffered from Severe PTSD.

Gutierrez recently Murdered his 11-Yr old Sister, Mother than Committed Suicide.

After Selfless Sacrifice & laying their lives on the line for ALL American Citizens, Men like Staff Sgt. Robert Bales & Abel Gutierrez are now being Unfairly Judged by people in the Media who NEVER served one day in the U.S. Military or in a Combat Zone.

Whatever happened to Patriotism?
Where is the Gratitude for our Men & Women who Serve in the U.S. Military?

I believe Bales is being Unfairly Judged because some people within the Federal Gov't want to use him as an Example to prove something to Afghanistan President Karzai.

Gutierrez is being Unfairly Judged because he's Hispanic, plain & simple.

This Troubles Me Immensely!

Its another Vietnam all over again.

After Drafting American Males ages 17 to 35, then Sending them to War to Vietnam & Cuba, upon their return they were treated like DIRT!

Although the Men & Women serving in the 21st Century U.S. Military were NOT Drafted they still served their Country.

Yet they are being treated like DIRT!

Thousands of Men & Women are returning home from Iraq & Afghanistan, Suffering from PTSD, yet the Federal Gov’t is Refusing to Treat them or Give them Disability Benefits.

This is NOT right!

Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is NOT some Phony Illness Human Beings can just make up out of the blue to receive Government Checks.

Its a REAL Mental & Physical Disease caused by Shock & Trauma.

PTSD is Not a New Mental Disease.

The Federal Gov't (Pentagon, CIA) has known about PTSD & and it affects on Soldiers for decades.

Men who served in World War 2, Vietnam & in the Bay Of Pig Wars All Suffered from PTSD.

So why is the Military & Federal Gov't choosing NOT to provide Proper Treatment & Counseling for Men & Women Suffering from this Illness?

Is it about Money or Saving Human Lives from Suicide?

What's worth more?

Providing Proper Treatment & Disability Checks until these Soldiers are Well enough to continue living Normal Lives or....

Suicide???

In fact, whenever a Service Member Suffering from PTSD Commits Suicide, the Federal Gov’t does NOT want to give their Survivors Life Insurance Money.
This is NOT right either.

As the 2012 Elections approach, Our Service Members are even being used as Pawns to help win those Elections.

Let's Please Continue Praying For Our Men & Women Serving In The U.S. Military.


Friends praise Sgt. Bales, but his past is dark


Bypassed for a promotion and struggling to pay for his house, Robert Bales was eyeing a way out of his job at a Washington state military base months before he allegedly gunned down 16 civilians in an Afghan war zone, records and interviews showed as a deeper picture emerged Saturday of the Army sergeant's financial troubles and brushes with the law.

While Bales, 38, sat in an isolated cell at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.'s military prison Saturday, classmates and neighbors from suburban Cincinnati, Ohio, remembered him as a "happy-go-lucky" high school football player who took care of a special needs child and watched out for troublemakers in the neighborhood.

CBS News correspondent White Johnson reports that, in Lake Tapps, Wash., where he and his family have a home, neighbors still can't believe the 11-year veteran is accused of mass murder.

"I'm shocked. I'm completely shocked," said Kassie Holland. "He was always happy. Happy guy, full of life. I really wouldn't expect it."

"A good guy, got put in the wrong place at the wrong time," said Paul Wohlberg.

But court records and interviews show that the Army veteran -- with a string of commendations for good conduct after four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan -- had joined the Army after a Florida investment job went sour, had a Seattle-area home condemned, struggled to make payments on another and failed to get a promotion or a transfer a year ago.

His legal troubles included charges that he assaulted a girlfriend and, in a hit-and run accident, ran bleeding in military clothes into the woods, court records show. He told police he fell asleep at the wheel and paid a fine to get the charges dismissed, the records show.

Military officials say that after drinking on a southern Afghanistan base, Bales crept away on March 11 to two slumbering villages overnight, shooting his victims and setting many of them on fire. Nine of the 16 killed were children and 11 belonged to one family.

"This is some crazy stuff if it's true," Steve Berling, a high school classmate, said of the revelations about the father of two known as "Bobby" in his hometown of Norwood, Ohio.

Bales hasn't been charged yet in the shootings, which have endangered complicated relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan and threatened to upend U.S. policy over the decade-old war.

His former platoon leader said Saturday Bales was a model soldier inspired by 9/11 to serve who saved lives in firefights on his second of three Iraq missions.

"He's one of the best guys I ever worked with," said Army Capt. Chris Alexander, who led Bales on a 15-month deployment in Iraq.

"He is not some psychopath. He's an outstanding soldier who has given a lot for this country."

But pressing family troubles were hinted at by his wife, Kari, on multiple blogs posted with names like The Bales Family Adventures and BabyBales. A year ago, she wrote that Bales was hoping for a promotion or a transfer after nine years stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord outside Tacoma, Wash.

"We are hoping to have as much control as possible" over the future, Kari Bales wrote last March 25. "Who knows where we will end up. I just hope that we are able to rent our house so that we can keep it. I think we are both still in shock."

After Bales lost out on a promotion to E7 -- a first-class sergeant -- the family hoped to go to either Germany, Italy or Hawaii for an "adventure," she said. They hoped to move by last summer; instead the Army redeployed his unit -- the 2nd Infantry Division of the 3rd Stryker Brigade, named after armored Stryker vehicles -- to Afghanistan.

It would be Bales' fourth tour in a war zone. He joined the military two months after 9/11 and spent more than three years in Iraq during three separate assignments since 2003. His attorney said he was injured twice in Iraq -- once losing part of his foot -- but his 20 or so commendations do not include the Purple Heart, given to soldiers wounded in combat.

Alexander said Bales wasn't injured while he oversaw him during their deployment -- Bales' second in Iraq. He called Bales a "very solid" officer who didn't have more difficulty than his fellow soldiers with battlefield stress. Bales shot at a man aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at his platoon's vehicle in Mosul, Iraq, sending the grenade flying over the vehicle.

"There's no doubt he saved lives that day," Alexander said. The charges he killed civilians is "100 percent out of character for him," he said.

Bales always loved the military and war history, even as a teenager, said Berling, who played football with him in the early 1990s on a team that included Marc Edwards, a future NFL player and Super Bowl champion with the New England Patriots.

"I remember him and the teacher just going back and forth on something like talking about the details of the Battle of Bunker Hill," he said. "He knew history, all the wars."

Bales exulted in the role once he finally achieved it. Plunged into battle in Iraq, he told an interviewer for a Fort Lewis base newspaper in 2009 that he and his comrades proved "the real difference between being an American as opposed to being a bad guy."

Bales joined the Army, Berling said, after studying business at Ohio State University -- he attended three years but didn't graduate -- and handled investments before the market downturn pushed him out of the business. Florida records show that Bales was a director at an inactive company called Spartina Investments Inc. in Doral, Fla.; his brother, Mark Bales, and a Mark Edwards were also listed as directors.

"I guess he didn't like it when people lost money," Berling said.

He was struggling to keep payments on his own home in Lake Tapps, a rural reservoir community about 35 miles south of Seattle; his wife asked to put the house on the market three days before the shootings, real estate Philip Rodocker said.

"She told him she was behind in our payments," Rodocker told The New York Times. "She said he was on his fourth tour and it was getting kind of old and they needed to stabilize their finances."

The house was not officially put on the market until Monday; on Tuesday, Rodocker said, Bales' wife called and asked to take the house off the market, talking of a family emergency.

Bales and his wife bought the Lake Tapps home in 2005, according to records, for $280,000; it was listed this week at $229,000. Overflowing boxes were piled on the front porch, and a U.S. flag leaned against the siding.

The sale may have been a sign of financial troubles. Bales and his wife also own a home in Auburn, about 10 miles north, according to county records, but abandoned it about two years ago, homeowners' association president Bob Baggett said. Now signs posted on the front door and window by the city warn against occupying the house.

"It was ramshackled," Baggett said. "They were not dependable. When they left there were vehicles parts left on the front yard...we'd given up on the owners."

The diverging portrait of the sergeant rippled across the country on Saturday.

"It's our Bobby. He was the local hero," said Michael Blevins, who grew up down the street from him in Norwood, Ohio. The youngest of five boys respected older residents, admonished troublemakers and loved children, even helping another boy in the area who had special needs.

In Washington state, court records showed a 2002 arrest for assault on a girlfriend. Bales pleaded not guilty and was required to undergo 20 hours of anger management counseling, after which the case was dismissed.

A separate hit-and-run charge was dismissed in Sumner, Wash.'s municipal court three years ago, according to records. It isn't clear from court documents what Bales hit; witnesses saw a man in a military-style uniform, with a shaved head and bleeding, running away.

When deputies found him in the woods, Bales told them he fell asleep at the wheel. He paid about $1,000 in fines and restitution and the case was dismissed in October 2009.

Dan Conway, a military attorney who represented one of four Lewis-McChord soldiers convicted in the deliberate killings of three Afghan civilians in 2010, said whether legal scrapes affect a soldier's career depends in part on whether they prompt the Army to issue administrative penalties. The punishments are typically recorded in official personnel files.

Over the past decade, Conway said, the military has sometimes been lax in administering such punishments. As a result, soldiers who might be bad apples sometimes remain in service longer than they otherwise might have.

"It's something you want to note," Conway said. "The best predictor of future violence is past violence."

Bales' lawyer, John Henry Browne of Seattle, said he didn't know if his client had been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder at the time of the shootings, but said it could be an issue at trial if experts believe it's relevant.

He also said Friday he didn't know if his client had been drinking the night of the massacre. Browne didn't return telephone calls on Saturday. His legal team has said Browne will be meeting with Bales at Fort Leavenworth next week.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, ABC News, CBS News, Daily Mail, Google Maps

Karzai Calls U.S. Troops "Demons" & Wants Them Out NOW! McCain Wants Them To Stay! Why?

Karzai is now calling U.S. Troops "Demons"! So why is Obama choosing to keep Our Troops there after Bin Laden's Death?
Because GOP Senators like John McCain & Mitch McConnell want this War to last FOREVER!

Pres. Obama knows its very likely he Will be Re-elected this Fall.

He also knows that due to being Outspent by Super Wealthy GOP Supporters, its very likely the GOP will soon be in Control of Both Chambers of Congress.

From January 2009 to November 2010, Democrats were in Complete Control of Congress.

But instead of tackling Employment Discrimination against BLACKS & Latinos, they became Complacent and Focused Solely on Gay Rights & Health Care.

Now in 2012, Millions of BLACK & Latino Citizens are Financially Ill-equipped to Donate to Pres. Obama's Campaign as most of them did in 2008.

So how is Pres. Obama positioning himself Politically?

Pres. Barack Obama is positioning himself so he will be able to Govern with a GOP-Controlled Congress.

This might explain why he has changed his mind about pulling out U.S. Troops from Afghanistan in 2014 instead of 2013 as he stated last year.

Just watch.









Gulf Widens Between U.S. and a More Volatile Karzai


The Americans in Afghanistan are “demons.”

They claim they burned Korans by mistake, but really those were “Satanic acts that will never be forgiven by apologies.”

The massacre of 16 Afghan children, women and men by an American soldier “was not the first incident, indeed it was the 100th, the 200th and 500th incident.”

Such harsh talk may sound as if it comes from the Taliban, but those are all remarks either made personally by the United States’ increasingly hostile ally here, President Hamid Karzai, or issued by his office in recent days and weeks.

The strongest such outburst came Friday. “Let’s pray for God to rescue us from these two demons,” Mr. Karzai said, apparently holding back tears at a meeting with relatives of the massacre victims, and clearly referring to the United States and the Taliban in the same breath. “There are two demons in our country now.”

Ever since the Koran-burning episode on Feb. 20 and its violent aftermath, the relationship between the two governments has lurched from one crisis to another. American officials have scrambled to run damage control, with President Obama expressing a personal apology for the Koran burning, as well as regrets about the massacre, while calling Mr. Karzai twice in the past week.

The White House went to lengths last week to depict Mr. Karzai’s call for Americans to hand over control a year earlier, by 2013, as no change in policy — only to have Mr. Karzai pointedly insist the next day that it was. The Americans fret that Mr. Karzai is making a difficult job almost impossible, with demands they often see as unreasonable; Mr. Karzai worries that the Americans seek to undermine him, and may yet abandon his country and him, once again, to their fate.

The Koran burnings brought these differences into sharp relief, and led to a rupture in trust some view as irreparable. After an American unit at Bagram Air Base inadvertently burned Korans, embassy officials were deeply worried about an investigation conducted by the country’s Ulema Council, its highest religious body.

The council’s pronouncements, however, are closely controlled by Mr. Karzai’s office — they are even issued by the presidential palace — and American officials were assured by senior members on the president’s staff that the council’s report would be tough but not incendiary.

“We were ready to get knocked a bit,” said an American official who asked not to be identified to preserve his relationship with Afghan officials. “We messed up pretty badly.”

The original draft, in fact, was relatively moderate, American and Afghan officials said. But at the last minute more hard-line elements of Mr. Karzai’s staff weighed in, and the joint statement finally issued by the Ulema Council and the palace used language like “Satanic act” and “unforgivable, wild and inhuman” about the book burnings, and “justifiable emotion” in regard to the violent reaction, which claimed the lives of at least 29 Afghans and 6 Americans.

Western diplomats have often viewed Mr. Karzai’s outbursts as playing to the galleries, meant for consumption by his own people only, not as serious statements of policy. But the galleries also include the public in the United States and its NATO allies, where majorities in nearly every country oppose remaining in Afghanistan, and every new contretemps risks further eroding an already tenuous support.

“I think this is very serious because Mr. Karzai has always had a very ambivalent attitude toward the West and toward the war — he has never really believed violence is the answer,” said Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British ambassador to Afghanistan from 2007 through 2009. “He is also very conscious and very resentful that his political survival and even perhaps his personal safety depend on the Americans.”

The current American ambassador, the veteran diplomat Ryan C. Crocker, was brought out of semiretirement by President Obama last July at least in part because he had known Mr. Karzai since the beginning: Mr. Crocker was the first envoy to Afghanistan after the invasion that defeated the Taliban, when Mr. Karzai was appointed interim leader here.

Like many of his predecessors, Mr. Crocker began his latest tour on an optimistic note. “President Karzai has the toughest job in the world, and he has been doing it for the last 10 years,” Mr. Crocker said early on, and has repeated often since. “You have to give him credit.”

While the two men still have a working relationship and meet often, according to aides to both, there are many signs that the warmth has gone out of that relationship once again.

Mr. Crocker insisted in an interview with PBS on Friday that this was not the case.

“I think he is a committed Afghan nationalist, that at the end of the day he seeks the same goals we do,” the ambassador said. “And sometimes the rhetoric gets a little heated. Sometimes my rhetoric has been known to get a little bit heated in a few of these meetings, and then I go sit under a tree and think about the larger equities at stake, and we move on.”

From Mr. Karzai’s point of view, the Americans have repeatedly defied his demands to end commando night raids, and one civilian casualty after another has put him in the position of either criticizing the Americans and angering them, or not criticizing them and angering Afghans.

“In any relationship there are things that one party does that the other party doesn’t particularly care for, and that goes both ways,” said James Cunningham, the deputy ambassador to Afghanistan. “The question is not just whether President Karzai is a partner; we’re discussing and putting into place a partnership that is going to look forward a decade or so, and that’s a partnership with Afghanistan and its leaders, whoever they are.”

The relationship is so frayed, however, that Mr. Karzai often is quick to view everything through the prism of presumed American perfidy.

When American diplomats meet with his political opponents, he sees it as a sign that they are out to topple him from power — something that has reportedly obsessed him ever since the presidential election in 2009, which the international community saw as widely fraudulent. American officials pressured him into agreeing to a runoff, which in the end his opponents refused.

“We don’t have to be here running Afghanistan, and that is what people are afraid of,” Mr. Cunningham said. “We are not running Afghanistan, we are easing our way out, and I think that’s what feeds this whole dynamic. The notion that somehow we hold the upper hand, that’s not the right way to look at what we are trying to arrange. We are really, actually trying to arrange a partnership in which Afghans run their affairs,” he said.

The Taliban routinely deride Mr. Karzai as nothing more than an American puppet, but that is certainly not the view of his purported puppet masters. “Never in history has any superpower spent so much money, sent so many troops to a country, and had so little influence over what its president says and does,” one European diplomat marveled.

Americans have, however, wielded influence on many occasions, and President Karzai is still smarting from many of them. When an aide to Mr. Karzai was arrested by an American-backed corruption task force, the president intervened to secure his release, and then eviscerated the anticorruption body, the Major Crimes Task Force. But from Mr. Karzai’s point of view, the Americans never gave him the courtesy of warning that they planned to arrest a top official.

Bette Dam, a Dutch author who interviewed Mr. Karzai extensively for her book, “Expedition Uruzgan: Hamid Karzai’s Journey Into the Palace,” says that what the Americans saw as corruption, Mr. Karzai and his family saw as simply patronage. Because the government was weak, with the Americans providing all the muscle, patronage was the only thing Mr. Karzai had to maintain his power base.

“Then you have President Obama, who says we have to do it differently. But the only thing that changed was Obama criticizing Karzai, making his government transparent, setting up task forces openly attacking his corruption,” she said. “It was not likely something would change; Karzai’s patronage system that was built up was too strong, and he himself too proud.”

The inquiry over the apparent embezzlement of nearly a billion dollars from Kabul Bank, which implicated Mr. Karzai’s brother and the brother of his first vice president, was deeply embarrassing, and he blamed American officials for leaking it to the press — and then using the threat of aid cuts to force him to dismember the bank.

From the point of view of the United States and its Western allies, they have only been trying to push Mr. Karzai to do the right thing. The Kabul Bank swindle was so notorious that it risked chasing away foreign aid donors.

From either perspective, it is a less-than-ideal situation — but the Americans have no alternative to Mr. Karzai, and Mr. Karzai has no alternative to the American-led coalition supporting him.

“The Americans are prepared to walk away,” said a senior Western official in Kabul. “And you’ve got an Afghan political establishment that is heavily dependent on the international presence. It’s a dynamic that is very unfortunate.”

“Karzai wants revenge on the U.S. because of the systematic insults he has suffered, that he feels his family suffered, because of Kabul Bank,” said a former Afghan government official. “The culture in the U.S. is about policy, it is about mutually rational interests. Revenge is at times more important in this part of the world, more important than any political or economic interest.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Daily Mail, NY Times, PBS, Russia Today, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps