Usa Thread

[StoneSoup]

OK - it is now September 5th. One week from now, the USA will be sorting through the wreckage of this year's vintage of 9-11 terrorist strikes.

 

In his infinite wisdom, President "More Mush from the Wimp" Obama's administration has announced the removal of funding from some or all of each of the following programs:

 

Hellfire missile

Tomahawk missile

A-10 Thunderbolt ("Warthog")

 

So - my question is: where are likely to be three targets hit on 9-11-14?

 

My guesses:

 

Texas

Colorado

Virginia

 

Oh - and Iraq and Afghanistan don't count - the "background noise" explosions would likely make it tough to accurately discern a strictly anniversary-based attack.

 

I will be delighted if 9-11-14 is actually "kaboom-less" - I just don't think that the slavering jihadists will be able to pass up the opportunity to take cheap shots at Uncle Sam, while the feckless Obama cruises the golf links, and fist-bumps his way through various celebrity fund-raising parties.

 

And - those three weapons systems up above? As a former Infantry officer, I have a hard time thinking of any other weapons systems that have done a better job of taking out bad guys, while minimizing risks to the good guys. WTF are they thinking, to diminish or eliminate these programs????

 

Cheers!

SS

[Flashermac]

Every combat vet I know loves the Warthog. Wish we'd had them in RVN. This government simply reuses to listen to the folks who have to do the fighting.

[cavanami]

> WTF are they thinking, to diminish or eliminate these programs????

 

They are NOT thinking! that's the problem!!

[Flashermac]

California to be first US state to ban plastic bags

 

 

LOS ANGELES - California governor Jerry Brown said late Thursday he will approve a ban on single-use plastic bags, in what would make the western US state the first to outlaw them.

 

Lawmakers passed the bill late last Friday, and it now only requires Brown’s signature to pass into law. The governor must do so before the end of September.

 

"I probably will sign it, yes," Democratic veteran Brown said during a televised debate with his Republican election rival Neel Kashkari, who is trailing badly in opinion polls.

 

"In fact, I’ll tell you why I’m going to sign it: there are about 50 cities with their own plastic bag ban, and that’s causing a lot of confusion," he said, cited by the Los Angeles Times and other media.

 

He added: "This is a compromise .. It’s taking into account the needs of the environment, and the needs of the economy and the needs of the grocers."

 

Under the Californian legislation, single-use plastic bags would disappear from grocery stores and pharmacies from July 1, 2015, and then from convenience and liquor stores from July 1, 2016.

 

The bill would allow stores to charge 10 cents for paper or reusable bags. Similar bans, backed by environmentalists, are already in place in cities including Los Angeles and San Francisco.

 

A ban is opposed by Republicans who say it would be too much government meddling for small and medium sized businesses, and by bag manufacturers who fear job losses.

 

Kashkari -- who latest polls indicate trails by 50 per cent to 34 per cent for the November 4 gubernatorial post -- said he opposes the legislation.

 

"No chance would I sign that bill," he said in Thursday’s debate.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/California-to-be-first-US-state-to-ban-plastic-bag-30242591.html

[Flashermac]

Every combat vet I know loves the Warthog. Wish we'd had them in RVN. This government simply reuses to listen to the folks who have to do the fighting.

 

[SpiceMan]

The US is now a theocracy

An atheist airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was denied reenlistment last month for refusing to take an oath containing “so help me God,†the American Humanist Association said Thursday.

And in a Sept. 2 letter to the inspectors general for the Air Force and Creech, Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA’s Apignani Humanist Legal Center, said the airman should be allowed to reenlist without having to swear to a deity, and instead given a secular oath. Miller said the AHA is prepared to sue if the airman is not allowed to reenlist.

According to the AHA, the unnamed airman was told Aug. 25 that the Air Force would not accept his contract because he had crossed out the phrase “so help me God.†The airman was told his only options were to sign the religious oath section of the contract without adjustment and recite an oath concluding with “so help me God,†or leave the Air Force, the AHA said.

That is unconstitutional and unacceptable, the AHA said.

“The government cannot compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being,†Miller said. “Numerous cases affirm that atheists have the right to omit theistic language from enlistment or reenlistment contracts.â€

Creech officials referred inquiries to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Officials at Nellis referred questions to Air Force public affairs officers at the Pentagon, who had not confirmed the incident by Thursday night.

The AHA’s letter also called attention to a quiet update last year of Air Force rules governing reenlistments, which now require all airmen to swear an oath to God.

Air Force Instruction 36-2606 spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment, which all airmen must take when they enlist or reenlist and ends with “so help me God.†The old version of that AFI included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.â€

That language was dropped in an Oct. 30, 2013, update to the AFI. The relevant section of that AFI now only lists the active-duty oath of enlistment, without giving airmen any option to choose not to swear an oath to a deity.

“Reciting ‘So help me God’ in the reenlistment and commissioning oaths is a statutory requirement under Title 10 USC 502,†Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said Thursday. AFI 36-2606 “is consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502. Paragraph 5.6 [and] was changed in October 2013 to reflect the aforementioned statutory requirement and airmen are no longer authorized to omit the words ‘So help me God.’ â€

The Air Force said it cannot change its AFI to make “so help me God†optional unless Congress changes the statute mandating it.

Miller pointed out that Article VI of the Constitution prohibits requiring religious tests to hold an office or public trust.

“Forcing [the airman] to swear to a supreme being as a condition of his reenlistment is tantamount to a ‘religious test’ and is therefore violative of this constitutional provision as well,†Miller said.

Miller also said that swearing an oath the airman does not believe in would be dishonest.

“This airman shows integrity, commitment to the nation, and respect for religion in standing firm for a secular oath that reflects his true values and intentions,†said Jason Torpy, president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers and a board member of the AHA.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140904/NEWS05/309040066/Group-Airman-denied-reenlistment-refusing-say-help-me-God-

[Flashermac]

The guy is a prat. Since he was re-enlisting, he must have sworn to it before. This time he decided to grandstand. How many other atheists and agnostics have said the words? He'd better hope he never is sworn in in a court room, where the oath usually ends "so help me God". A judge might fine him for contempt of court. I had to do a lot of thins I didn't like in the military, but I knew enough to go through the motions. He doesn't. The military is cutting back on people anyway. Bye bye, Mr Airman.

[King Kung]

I applaud his courage. My guess is that he will be allowed to reenlist without having to orally recite the fantasy of god.

[SpiceMan]

Congress changed the oath in 2013. When the airman first enlisted he'd have sworn a different oath.

 

Article VI of the Constitution prohibits requiring religious tests to hold an office or public trust. Forcing the airman to swear to a supreme being as a condition of his reenlistment is tantamount to a ‘religious test’ and is therefore violative of this constitutional provision as well.

[Flashermac]

Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers

 

 

"The men and women of America's all-volunteer military do not come disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds. Instead, both active-duty enlisted troops and officers come disproportionately from high-income neighborhoods: a trend that has increased since 9/11. America's troops are also highly educated, and the racial composition of the military is similar to that of the civilian population, although whites and blacks are slightly overrepresented among enlisted recruits."

 

...

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers