Tag Archives: National Guard

Gov. Newsom pulling National Guard from border to fight “real threats”

From SF Gate: Gov. Gavin Newsom will withdraw most of the California National Guard troops who were deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border last year, saying the state needs them to prepare for wildfires and fight drug trafficking rather than bolster President Trump’s response to a “manufactured” immigration crisis.

Newsom said he will rescind authorization Monday for the deployment of the Guard troops, which Trump requested and then-Gov. Jerry Brown approved in April. Brown extended the deployment in September, and the state’s 360 Guard troops were scheduled to stay on the border through March.

Brown declared last year that “California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws.” Newsom’s office, however, said the troops were operating cameras along the border, doing vehicle maintenance and performing other jobs that would normally fall to federal agencies, freeing up resources for U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Voice of San Diego, an online news outlet, reported in August that in at least two cases, Border Patrol agents apprehended immigrants crossing into the state illegally after being notified by California National Guard troops.

Newsom’s withdrawal order comes one day before he delivers his first State of the State address at 11 a.m. Tuesday. According to excerpts of the speech released by his office, the governor will say that “the border ‘emergency’ is a manufactured crisis. And California will not be part of this political theater.

“Which is why I have given the National Guard a new mission. They will refocus on the real threats facing our state.” The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Under the new order Newsom intends to sign, 110 Guard troops now at the border will be redeployed to help the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection with fire prevention efforts, and 100 troops will conduct antidrug trafficking intelligence operations, including screening cargo at points of entry. Newsom will also request funding from the U.S. Defense Department to expand the state Guard’s antidrug task force by at least 150 members.

“This is our answer to the White House: No more division, xenophobia or nativism,” Newsom plans to say in his State of the State speech.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Oregon governor tells Trump she'll refuse order to deploy National Guard to protect our border

DACA
You cannot win anything with proggies who love illegal aliens. They defy immigration laws and make up their own rules.
Gov. Brown has vowed to keep Oregon a sanctuary state.
From Newsweek: Governor Kate Brown said she will refuse any order from President Donald Trump to send Oregon’s guard troops down south to the US-Mexico border. 
Trump wants National Guard troops sent to the Mexican border as his effort to build an impenetrable wall stalls because his administration is struggling to secure enough funds from Congress or other sources. He originally said Mexico would pay for the wall, but it has refused.
In a presidential memorandum authorizing the request of deployment of Guards to the border, Trump says U.S. security is “imperiled by a drastic surge of illegal activity”, in particular drug trafficking by gangs and unlawful immigration.
He said it is a “crisis” of “lawlessness” at the southern border.
“If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no,” tweeted Democratic Gov Brown. “As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border.”
She added: “There’s been no outreach by the President or federal officials, and I have no intention of allowing Oregon’s guard troops to be used to distract from his troubles in Washington.”
The National Guard is a reserve force of the U.S. Army. Each state has its own unit of guard troops, which falls under the authority of the governor.
Other governors welcomed President Trump’s decision, including in Texas, which shares a border with Mexico.
“My top priority as governor is ensuring the safety and security of Texans, and securing our southern border has always been essential to that mission,” Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, a Republican, said.
“In my time as governor, Texas has maintained a continuous presence of National Guard members along the border, and we’ve added hundreds of permanent Department of Public Safety troopers to the region.
“Today’s action by the Trump Administration reinforces Texas’ longstanding commitment to secure our southern border and uphold the Rule of Law, and I welcome that support.”
The governor also pointed to previous decisions by the Obama and Bush administrations, in 2010 and 2006 respectively, to use National Guard troops to secure the southern border.
See also:

DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Seattle worker treated "like dirt" for exposing government fraud

In this photo taken May 12, 2016, Commerce Department employee C.J. Jackson poses for a photo in front of the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building where she works, in Seattle. Jackson, a federal employee who helped expose a fraud in which an Army veteran lied his way to a Purple Heart and hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits, was punished for supposedly violating the man's privacy. Jackson says she's spent $20,000 on legal fees to fight off the discipline. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

In this photo taken May 12, 2016, Commerce Department employee C.J. Jackson poses for a photo in front of the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building where she works, in Seattle. Jackson, a federal employee who helped expose a fraud in which an Army veteran lied his way to a Purple Heart and hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits, was punished for supposedly violating the man’s privacy. Jackson says she’s spent $20,000 on legal fees to fight off the discipline. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)


From the Seattle Times: A federal employee in Seattle helped expose a fraud in which an Army veteran lied his way to a Purple Heart and hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits.
Her reward? The agency Cristina Jackson works for repeatedly tried to punish her for what it said were violations of the man’s privacy, according to an AP review of hundreds of pages of personnel and investigative records.
U.S. Commerce Department officials proposed suspending her for at least a month — even as they reached one of two settlements with the veteran. Darryl Lee Wright was paid for skipped work and legal fees he incurred complaining about a hostile work environment.
They tried to downgrade Jackson’s annual rating, then proposed a shorter suspension.
Jackson says she has racked up $20,000 in legal bills fighting the discipline. The Commerce Department, which did not respond to requests for comment, has refused to reimburse her.
“To this day I don’t understand it,” Jackson, 55, said. “What does ‘vindication’ even mean when the agency I work for doesn’t see it that way?”
Wright, 48, pleaded guilty to federal charges in February, more than six years after Jackson told her bosses that he had submitted fake National Guard orders to be paid for a week of missed work. He’s due to be sentenced in August. Through his lawyer he declined an interview request.
Darryl Lee Wright

Darryl Lee Wright


“Cristina Jackson’s willingness to come forward was critical to uncovering the truth,” Assistant U.S. Attorney David Reese Jennings said. “But for her actions, law enforcement would not have had what they needed to uncover the fraud.”
Wright joined the Economic Development Administration, a job-promoting agency within the Commerce Department, in 2008. His absences quickly mounted, and he announced he was dealing with PTSD stemming from service in Iraq.
Jackson, the office’s administrative director, oversaw his attendance records. Late in 2009, Wright asked to convert missed work into paid leave for “emergency” National Guard duty. The orders he provided were unsigned or didn’t have his name.
Jackson, who previously worked in administrative roles with the Navy and Army reserve, asked for more documentation. He told her to check with the Washington National Guard.
With permission from her boss, that’s what she did. The Guard determined Wright “purposely falsified Washington Military Department orders to defraud his civilian employer,” according to a December 2009 investigation report .
The Commerce Department began planning to fire Wright, according to a memo written by Jackson’s immediate boss.
But Wright went on the offensive. In 2010 he accused Jackson of violating the Privacy Act by informing the National Guard about his PTSD, the records show. The federal law governs disclosure of personal information kept by federal agencies.
Officials quickly reached the first settlement with Wright. They agreed to allow him to convert up to 240 hours of missed work to sick leave, paid $5,500 for his legal fees, and even required Jackson and others in the office to take a class about PTSD and other combat injuries.
After Jackson learned about that settlement, she filed a complaint with the Commerce Department’s inspector general, who in 2011 recommended Wright be disciplined “based on the gravity of his misconduct.” Those findings made their way to federal prosecutors.
In a 2014 indictment, they alleged an audacious scam stemming from a single lie: that Wright was injured in Kirkuk, Iraq, on Aug. 30, 2005. Wright, then a first lieutenant with the Idaho National Guard, was near a battalion headquarters building when two rockets landed about 100 yards away, he and others in his unit wrote. Their reports referenced no casualties. “As far as anyone on our team getting hurt, no, that didn’t happen,” then-Capt. Mark Moeckli said last month.
But in 2010, Wright successfully applied for a Purple Heart. In his paperwork, he claimed he “was violently thrown and knocked unconscious from the percussion of the rockets’ impact.”
Wright also claimed Social Security disability benefits, insisting he was frequently bedridden. Social Security paid his sister to be his live-in caregiver, though she performed no such service. By May 2013, the siblings were bringing in benefits totaling $10,000 per month, prosecutors said.
Meanwhile, Wright was employed by the Commerce Department until 2012, coaching high school basketball in the Seattle suburb of Woodinville, and serving on the planning commission in Snoqualmie, the city east of Seattle.
Jackson’s direct boss, A. Leonard Smith, defended her. In 2011, when he learned a human resources investigator proposed suspending Jackson for at least a month, he wrote a blistering memo, calling the investigation of her “severely deficient.” He noted that the Privacy Act typically does not bar the release of information gleaned outside agency files and that Wright had spoken freely about his purported medical condition.
“It is an egregious mistake to penalize an employee who has done nothing in this case other than what is expected of her position,” Smith wrote. The 30-day suspension was never imposed.
“They were false charges with regard to C.J., if you want my opinion,” said Bettye Atkinson, Wright’s former supervisor, who retired after 40 years at the Commerce Department. “A lot of this was handled out of the D.C. office and they didn’t listen to us in the regional office.”
The department did eventually propose firing Wright. In response, his attorney blamed Wright’s actions on war injuries and recommended in 2012 the department allow him to pursue a disability retirement instead. A settlement that year resulted in his departure from the agency.
But Jackson’s troubles continued. Even after receiving Smith’s memo, Thomas Guevara, the Economic Development Administration’s deputy assistant secretary for regional affairs, docked her annual rating for 2011 and in early 2012 proposed suspending her for two days. Guevara declined to answer questions from the AP.
Jackson’s lawyer, Saphronia Young, helped have Jackson’s excellent annual rating re-instated, but the proposed two-day suspension has not been withdrawn, Young said. “She went from being this highly regarded, stellar employee with an unblemished record to being treated like dirt,” Young said. “It’s just not fair.”
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Black Friday Shopping Starts Early In Ferguson

This had to be the stupidest decision and reaction ever. From time of announcement to police response.
 

Yup Abe, we know how you feel.

 By Bill Mauldin


Yup Abe, we know how you feel.

Is Anyone surprised? 

I’m done caring and trying to help. True colors were shown tonight,
Anyone else kinda wonder where the so called “Police,  Fire” National Guard” were? All I saw was looting and burning, Law enforcement was ineffectual  at best, complicit at least.
Weep with me as America burns. Oh and while where at it let’s brush up on our
“Rules For A Gunfight”
Anonymous
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap – life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.”
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don’t drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4″.
25. You can’t miss fast enough to win.
~Steve~

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Heavily-armored DHS vehicles seen on road

Remember these posts on FOTM?:

Now we can add these Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) armored vehicles.

FOTM’s Hardnox received this as an email, but the same information is also in Mac Slavo’s article of Sept. 13, 2012, on PrisonPlanet.com. Here’s the email:

Seen On The Road Last Week

What could they need equipment like this for here in the US? They are hitting the road! Caravans of National Guard equipment but with new never-before-seen equipment in the caravans.

Take a close look at what is painted on the side of the Black Humvees.

The Humvees are fully armored — the same standard used by our military.

They are gearing up and now have enforcement vehicles and are training with the National Guard, FEMA and Police.

This armored caravan includes the mammoth GLS vehicle, the largest vehicle on the trailer. You don’t get anymore armored than the GLS, a serious piece of equipment that has never been used inside the United States until now.

Reportedly, DHS has 2,500 of these monsters.

~End of email~

Add to all this the purchase of ammunition (including lethal hollow-point bullets) and high-powered rifles by federal government agencies. See my posts:

The ducks seem to be lining up. See also:

Update:

FOTM’s Wild Bill Alaska found this info on those GLS vehicles:

The GLS is an acronym for GESELLSCHAFT FUR LOGISTISCHEN SERVICE, the German supplier of these vehicles. These are heavily armored vehicles designed to survive IED attacks. Read more about them, here.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

National Guard ask police for names of gunowners and military vets

Two days ago, I received a very troubling phone call from a trusted friend. The friend does not want his name and that of his state to be made public. I will call my friend X and his state Y.

Here is what X told me:

Last Saturday, August 4, 2012, X got a phone call from a good friend, Z, who is a cop in a small town in Y.
Z said that both he and a cop in another neighboring town were paid a visit by two men, driving in separate unmarked Humvees, who identified themselves as members of the National Guard.
The two National Guardsmen (NGs) said they were “doing a survey” and asked the cops for those residents of their respective towns who:

  • own lots of firearms;
  • are long-distance shooters;
  • are military veterans.

The cops told the NGs that, it being a Saturday, they should come back on Monday when the police chiefs are at the stations. But the NGs said they are asking precisely the rank-and-file police officers; in other words, the NGs’ intent was to bypass the brass, i.e., the chain of command.
After the two NGs left, cop Z followed their vehicles and saw the NGs drive around town, making GPS readings.
Cop Z told my friend X that:

  • The National Guard is working under the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS).
  • Obama and Eric Holder, known for their antipathy toward the Second Amendment and private gun ownership, found a legal loophole that allows the federal government to ask the questions the two NGs had asked the cops. And so Obama issued a presidential directive empowering such agencies as the FBI, U.S. Marshalls, BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), and the National Guard to gather this information to compile a data base.

So I went looking on the web. This is what I found:

  1. I found NOTHING about the National Guard going around asking cops for information on owners of firearms and military vets, in Y or any other state.
  2. The U.S. National Guard is considered to be a reserve military force and, as such, is under the Dept. of Defense, not Homeland Security. The agencies that are under DHS are Customs and Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Secret Service, and the Office of Inspector General. (See DHS’s organizational chart).
  3. I cannot find a presidential directive that specifically orders federal agencies like the National Guard to conduct a firearms survey by asking cops in towns across America. But that is not to say that such a presidential directive doesn’t exist. Here’s why:
    I discovered and opened a can of worms about which I’d never even known until now. The “can of worms” is something called Presidential Directives. This is what Wikipedia says:

Presidential Directives … are a form of an executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the National Security Council. The directives articulate the executive’s national security policy and carry the “full force and effect of law”.

Since many of the Presidential Directives pertain to the national security of the United States, many were or are secret (“classified“).

Presidents have issued such directives under various names.
Under President George W. Bush (2001-2009), they were called National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD) and Homeland Security Presidential Directives.
Under Barack Obama (2009- ), they are called NSPD, Presidential Study Directives (to initiate policy review procedures), and Presidential Policy Directives (to promulgate Presidential decisions on national security matters).
Regarding the secrecy of presidential directives, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy stated in February 2008 that:
“Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the (George W.) Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress.”
For the list of known Homeland Security Presidential Directives of George W. Bush, click here.

As for Obama’s Presidential Policy Directives (PPD), you can see from the table below that:

  • The titles of most of his Directives are unknown.
  • Of those Directives with titles, the contents (texts) of only 4 Directives (Nos. 1, 2, 8, 14) are made public.
  • The list of Obama’s Presidential Policy Directives hasn’t been updated since February 28, 2012, which means there must be more subsequent Directives for which we don’t even have a number!

Number

Presidential Policy Directive
Title

Date

PPD 1 Organization of the National Security Council System 02/13/09
PPD 2 Implementation of the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats (National Strategy) 11/23/09
PPD 3
PPD 4 National Space Policy (Fact Sheet) 06/28/10
PPD 5
PPD 6 Global Development (Fact Sheet) 09/22/10
PPD 7 National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) 01/26/11
PPD 8 National Preparedness 03/30/11
PPD 9
PPD 10
PPD 11
PPD 12
PPD 13
PPD 14 Procedures Implementing Section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Fact Sheet) 02/28/12

To conclude, given:

  • The known fact that the POS in the White House and his attorney general Eric Holder want nothing more than to limit private gun ownership;
  • The fact that Presidential Directives carry “the full force and effect of law,” but are so secretive that the substance of many of these Directives is unknown to, not just the American people, but “as a rule” to Congress as well;

Then I see no reason to doubt the account of the two cops of a visit by two mysterious National Guardsmen.
We live in perilous times. The Establishment Media are not doing their job, so it is left to the alternative New Media. Our weapon is truth. Please help this post to go viral by publishing this to your Facebook page and e-mailing it to your family, friends, and acquaintances.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Should Michael Haley Resign?

Haley defends military husband’s Facebook post

Army Times: The head of South Carolina’s National Guard said Tuesday he will conduct an internal review of the Guard’s policy on social media use after Gov. Nikki Haley’s husband used Facebook to call members of the state Senate cowards for not voting on a bill favored by his wife.
Maj. Gen. Robert Livingston said he spoke with Michael Haley about the matter, and Michael Haley told the general he intended to express himself as a private citizen, not as a member of the Guard.  Michael Haley is an officer the South Carolina Army National Guard.
Sen. Jake Knotts, a Lexington Republican who has often clashed with Gov. Haley, called late Tuesday for Michael Haley to resign his commission if he can’t abstain from “contentious partisan issues.”
In speeches, Gov. Nikki Haley frequently talks about her husband’s military service and says she is proud that he puts on his uniform daily when he goes to work.  At a news conference, the governor defended her husband, saying he made the posting while away from the family and attending two weeks of military training in Texas.  “He is a person. He is a citizen. He has the right to get frustrated,” Haley said, responding to calls that Michael Haley apologize for the posting.
Michael Haley’s post came Thursday after the Senate failed to vote on a bill backed by his wife that would restructure portions of the state government.  “It amazes me that in a week that we have heroes who have died fighting for our freedoms, we have cowards who are afraid to take a vote in the senate,” Michael Haley wrote.
Earlier that day, the Guard announced that three South Carolina soldiers had been killed in an attack by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan.
“We reviewed the posting,” Livingston said in a telephone interview. “It was not a partisan expression and he did not express himself as a member of the military.”
Livingston said he wants to ensure that every citizen, including Michael Haley, maintains his freedom of speech.  But the general noted that Michael Haley has a unique role serving as the governor’s spouse, as well as a lieutenant in the National Guard.  “I think he is very conscious of the stir this has caused,” Livingston said.
Livingston said the military has had to grapple with an “evolving” approach to social media, and the situation offers a chance for review.  “We will conduct an internal review and do a wash on the policy that all our people have to deal with” on social media, Livingston said. “We will use this as an opportunity to make sure all our people don’t step over the line.”
Livingston said he hoped the contretemps does not take away from the heroism displayed by the three members of the Guard who gave their lives in Afghanistan.  “We have three real heroes who have fallen. I don’t want us to lose sight of the tremendous sacrifice that they, and their families, are making,” he said.
Knotts suggested that Michael Haley’s action violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity.
“Michael Haley should be ashamed of himself for invoking the memory of dead soldiers just to make a partisan political point,” he said in a statement. “As a commissioned officer in the South Carolina National Guard, Mr. Haley should know that he is not permitted to engage in partisan rhetoric.”
Knotts said that if Michael Haley wants to be involved in politics, he should resign from the military.  “I’m concerned when a person uses his uniform or position in the military for political purposes,” Knotts said. He said the Facebook post was “an insult to the families and to the Senate as a whole.”  He said Michael Haley should offer apologies to both the soldiers’ families and to the Senate.
On Monday Sumter Sen. Phil Leventis said on the floor of the Senate that Michael Haley’s comment amounted to politics at its worst. He said he didn’t think the three soldiers died for a new South Carolina Department of Administration.  “I found it difficult that Mr. Haley implied that he knew what those three wanted. They died as Americans. They didn’t die as Republicans or Democrats,” said Leventis, a Democrat who retired as a brigadier general in the South Carolina Air National Guard after 30 years in uniform.
After he spoke, Republican colleague Sen. Chip Campsen of Charleston rose to say Leventis was no coward, and had 21 combat flights in the Iraq war to his credit.  Leventis said in a telephone interview Tuesday that he believed Michael Haley “stepped way out of line” by using the soldiers’ deaths to make a point about a local political issue.
In April, a Marine Corps sergeant in San Diego was discharged for criticizing President Obama on Facebook.  The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticism of the commander in chief.
Pentagon directives say military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.
Federal employees engage in partisan political activity all the time (some federal employees, such as the President, are exempt from the Hatch Act).  What do you think goes on in DC on a daily basis?
Michael Haley is in a sticky situation – in the National Guard and married to a politician.  Should he be able to voice his opinion while not in uniform?  How can he not be a vocal supporter for his wife?
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0