An early Monday morning TODAY show report says no explosives were found, but other reports say there were. I suppose we’ll never know for sure.
CBS(h/t Reader) Officials at Fort Sam Houston say they’ve taken into custody the driver of a vehicle that military officials say contained explosive materials, and which sparked a lockdown at the San Antonio Army base. The Bexar County Sheriff’s Department said on Twitter that the lockdown was being handled by military police, and the sheriff’s department had no units assigned to the case.
Alex Delgado, spokesman for the 502nd Air Base Wing, says in a statement that the lockdown was lifted Sunday night after officials decided it was safe to return to normal operations. It wasn’t clear how long the person taken into custody would be held or if charges would be filed. Nobody else was in the vehicle.
Military officials told KCEN-TV that the man that drove through the gate at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio was a Saudi National and that explosive materials were found in the vehicle. The unidentified man was taken into custody and officials are still trying to determine his motive. Military officials are not yet calling this an attempted terrorist attack.
According to the city of San Antonio’s website, the base was established in 1910 — the ninth-oldest Army installation in the country. Fort Sam Houston now encompasses 3,000 acres and is home of military medicine and part of Joint Base San Antonio
No doubt rejoicing at the prospect of the rumored replacement for Hagel as Secretary of Defense – a far left wing woman who will pose no threat at all to the advancement of the Islamic State (ISIS)! Not to mention advancing Barack Hussein Obama’s continuing degradation and decimation of the U.S. military.
CBSAmong the leading contenders to replace Hagel is Michele Flournoy, who served as the Pentagon’s policy chief for the first three years of Obama’s first term. Flournoy, who would be the first woman to head the Pentagon, is now chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, a think tank that she co-founded.
Grommet and Matty, who specialized in detecting IEDs, were injured when one exploded near them in Afghanistan. Grommet came back with PTSD, traumatic brain injury, migraines, severe chronic back pain and breathing problems.
Under Robby’s Law — signed by Bill Clinton in 2000 — military dog handlers have the first right to adopt their animals if injured together. Upon returning from Afghanistan in July 2013, Grommet and Matty were separated by the Army, and Grommet never saw Matty again. “It’s like someone took your kid in front of you — and there’s nothing you can do about it,” Grommet said.
On Friday, Grommet and his parents drove 17 hours from Fort Campbell, Ky., to South Carolina, where Matty had been living since 2013. (Grommet had to sign a non-disclosure agreement to keep the identity of the South Carolina “owner” secret).
Grommet stopped about 25 feet away from Matty’s kennel, too nervous to see him. “I was a little worried he forgot me,” Grommet said. Then he called his name. When the kennel door opened, Matty charged. “He jumped all over me,” Grommet said. “I couldn’t have asked for a better response. I knew then that he remembered me, and truly wanted to be with me.”
Grommet told The Post that Matty will be the best medicine for all his war injuries. “It’s very hard to be upset around him,” Grommet said. “He brings a lot of light into everything.”
With the brutal murders of 2 Canadian soldiers by Muslims in Canada still fresh in their minds, Canadians and Prime Minister Stephen Harper came out to pay tribute and honor their soldiers and veterans.
Where’s Matty? Radio host Michael Savage is trying to help find him. (See video below)
Matty, a German Shepard who served the US Military while in Afghanistan. His former colleague, Spc. Brent Grommet was separated from him despite the law that allows him to adopt the pup.
NY Post On July 20, 2013, Spc. Brent Grommet returned from Afghanistan with his military working dog, a Czech German shepherd named Matty. The two had gone through basic training together, deployed together and were injured together when a roadside IED detonated.
Grommet slept on top of Matty’s crate as they flew back to the United States. Upon landing at an Air Force base in New Jersey, the two were separated — standard operating procedure. Grommet wasn’t worried, though: According to Army regulations, if he wanted Matty, he had the sole right to adopt his military working dog. This right is colloquially known as Robby’s Law, and was signed by President Clinton in 2000.
Grommet had already filled out the adoption paperwork in the Middle East and handed it over to K2 Solutions, the private firm that then contracted with the Army on canine issues — and who took Matty for an examination. But Brent Grommet never saw Matty again. He says a Lt. Col. Richard Vargas absconded with Matty, and the military has done nothing to make it right. “It’s like someone stole your kid in front of you,” Grommet says, “and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
Spc. Grommet and Matty
Grommet, now 23, came back from Afghanistan with traumatic brain injury, hearing loss and spinal-cord injury. The latter required surgery and still causes him severe daily pain. He also suffers from migraines, chronic breathing problems and PTSD. “Matty calmed his mood swings,” says Grommet’s father, Don. “When he thought he was getting the dog back, he seemed to be doing better.”
But months passed without any word on Brent’s adoption papers, and all of the Grommets’ queries were stonewalled. Furious, Don Grommet called every military base in the United States that handles military working dogs.
“Finally, I got down to Fort Bragg,” Don said. He was given the runaround there, too, until he got an anonymous tip from a civilian on base. “She said, ‘I have no control over this. You need to talk to Richard Vargas,’ ” Don said. “She never used his military rank, but she gave me his phone number.”
The duo with their crew serving in Afghanistan.
Vargas, it turned out, was in charge of military dog adoptions. Don got Vargas on the phone. “He said, ‘I adopted the dog out legally, so there’s nothing you can do about it,’ ” Don recalled. “He was very rude. So then the fight was on.” When Brent reached Vargas, he got a similarly cold response. “It was a 30-second conversation,” Brent says. “I nicely explained what happened to me, and could he help me find my dog? He informed me that was not his job. And that there wasn’t anything he could do, and not to contact him again.”
Vargas, now at the Pentagon, did not respond to messages left by The Post. The Grommets believe either Vargas or someone close to him has Matty. “It would make more sense to break regulation for that,” Brent said. Last Friday, after speaking to The Post, Brent Grommet was pulled aside by two majors at Fort Campbell and warned not to speak about Matty to The Post, or he would be sent to prison at Leavenworth. “It’s not a threat,” Brent was told. “It’s [military] law.”
Matty’s absence has only exacerbated Brent’s physical and mental anguish, according to Don. “It’s not allowing him to heal,” Don said. “If he had the dog to take care of, to take for walks, it would force him to fight through the pain. Because he’ll never let that dog suffer. Nobody knows what the two of them went through over there except for each other.”
Brent misses his best friend. “It’s hard, it really is,” Brent sayshe said. He’s still serving at Ft. Campbell, still longing for Matty. “If I just wanted a dog, I could get a dog. I don’t want a dog. I want my dog.”
Army Times(h/t Mike F) Retired Marine Maj. “Fox” Sinke says he has received threatening phone calls from Arabic speakers since he stood guard at Canada’s National War Memorial last week. But as he told police: “If they’re looking for a fight, they came to the right guy.”
Sinke said he received at least two phone calls on Tuesday from people who screamed at him in Arabic and then hung up. “The only words I recognized were ‘kill you,’ because I’ve heard them before,” he said. When Sinke told police about the phone calls, he added, “I promise you this: If they come here, they’ll die here.”
Sinke is a decorated veteran who did tours in Vietnam and received five Purple Hearts. When Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, a Canadian service member, was shot and killed last month while guarding Canada’s war memorial, Sinke felt obligated to honor the fallen hero. “The murder of the young Cpl. Cirillo was so despicable and craven that I just couldn’t find it within myself to do nothing,” said Sinke, a dual Canadian-American citizen.
So Sinke, who lives in Canada, donned his Marine uniform and sword and went to the memorial to stand guard. He told local media that he came to pay tribute to fallen comrade in arms and he wanted to show that Canadians will not be intimidated. He also had a message for would-be terrorists: “I said, ‘Hey, you’re looking for a target, here’s a new one for you; give it your best shot; we’ll see how it works out for you.’ ”
Sinke arrived at the memorial at 6:30 a.m. and guarded the memorial alone until 9 a.m., when the Canadian honor guard and eight Canadian police officers armed with fully automatic weapons showed up, he said.
When a video (below) aired of Sinke guarding the memorial, some questioned whether he actually served as a Marine. Guardian of Valor, an organization that vets claims about people’s military service, posted Sinke’s service records on their website, putting all doubts to rest. “…We did some digging and reached out to our contacts to find out more about Major Sinke, and we can tell you that not only did this man serve as a Marine, he was a highly decorated Marine!” the release states. “He is taking a stand for what he believes is right, and yes he has five Purple Hearts.”
The Canadian troops were glad to see the Marine at the war memorial and allowed him to guard the northern side of the monument for the day, but the senior police officer was initially perturbed, telling Sinke he should not have been there by himself.
“He says, ‘God man, you got more balls than brains don’t you?’ ” Sinke said. “So I said, ‘Well actually, sir, I was kind of hoping that one of those scum-of-the-earth radicals would show up and take me on because, to tell you the truth, I have always dreamed of being able to confront an evil-doer and run him through with this damn sword.’ So he kind of liked that, you know.”
The former Navy SEAL who says he fired the shot that killed Osama bin Laden says he doesn’t care if people believe him. “The most important thing that I’ve learned in the last two years is to me it doesn’t matter anymore if I am ‘The Shooter.’ The team got him,” Robert O’Neill said. “He died afraid, and he knew we were there to kill him. And that’s closure.”
CNN(h/t Pat Dollard)“AC360″ obtained the audio interview from Quade, who conducted a series of interviews with O’Neill over the past 18 months. “Regardless of the negativity that comes with it, I don’t give a f***. We got him,” says O’Neill.
O’Neill, who had been serving as a SEAL for 15 years at the time of the bin Laden raid, had participated in other missions, but he said he feared this mission would be his most difficult. He and other team members believed they would not return alive from the mission to get bin Laden. “Well, you have to go pump yourself up to go die. So we would talk about this,” O’Neill said.”…(It was a) group of guys who knew time on Earth was up, so you could be honest with each other. And we all accepted and nobody was afraid. It was really cool.”
He also said when he identified himself as the shooter to the families of 9/11 victims, they thanked him for closure.
One would think a man with four stars on his collar leading U.S. forces in Afghanistan just one year ago would have no problem working with military leadership in the fight against militants of the so-called Islamic State at present.
The solution is to “celebrate” Islam and show our “profound respect” for it.
“As we seek to expose ISIS’ true nature,” Allen told the gathering on Monday, “we must also tell a positive story, one that highlights our respect – our profound respect for Islam’s proud traditions, its rich history, and celebration of scholarship and family and community.” “We must work with clerics and scholars and teachers and parents to tell the story of how we celebrate Islam, even as we show that ISIS perverts it.”
Allen said that ISIS propaganda serves both to attract recruits and “perverts the innocent.”
“It is only when we contest ISIS presence online and deny the legitimacy of its message – the message that it sends to vulnerable young people – and as we expose ISIS for the un-Islamic, criminal cult of violence that it really is, it is only then that ISIS will be truly defeated.”
Washington ExaminerAnd if that isn’t bad enough, wait’ll you hear what the NATO Commander had to say:
U.S. European Command Commander, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Philip M. Breedlove
“The best way to beat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s success at recruiting Westerners is for moderate Muslims to step up and counter the message,” the commander of NATO forces in Europe said Monday.
U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove said the extremist group’s ability to recruit foreign fighters to come to Syria and Iraq is a “real problem” for the alliance. And it is compounded by concerns about “lone wolf” terror attacks by fighters returning from the Middle East and others inspired by the group’s ideology.
“It’s hard to address recruiting until we address those hearts and minds,” Breedlove told reporters at the Pentagon. “We need to hear the voices of moderate Muslims in the mosques.”
Business Insider So it’s really no surprise that many of the Military’s top leaders can’t stand the Generals leading the Anti-ISIS Coalition:
An article posted at Foreign Policy on Thursday by Mark Perry lists a surprising number of detractors to Allen’s appointment, including many in and out of uniform. The most obvious rift comes from Gen. Lloyd Austin, the man in charge of Central Command, tasked with carrying out the military plan to “degrade and destroy” ISIL, the administration’s preferred acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
“Why the hell do we need a special envoy — isn’t that what [Secretary of State] John Kerry’s for?” a senior officer close to Austin told Perry, of the potential for confusion since Gen. Allen reports directly to President Obama.
Indeed, Gen. James Mattis — the commander before Austin at Centcom — demonstrated a perfect example of the military’s ability to build coalitions without outside support, in retelling how he got 29 nations together to counter Iran’s attempt to mine the Strait of Hormuz.
“The military overseas can do more than simply reinforce foreign policy,” Mattis said earlier this year. “We can also buy time for the diplomats to do their magic.”
Even Gen. Anthony Zinni — himself a former Centcom commander who later served as special envoy to Israel for peace talks in 2002 — was critical of Allen’s appointment (via The Tampa Tribune):
“John Allen is a great guy, but does it take a retired general to coordinate a coalition? What is Centcom, chopped liver? Did Norman Schwarzkopf get some retired general? Who is really leading here, that is my question.”
And there are many more gripes noted by military officers who spoke on condition of anonymity to Foreign Policy. One derides Allen as “a boy scout.” Another, noting his new role as a quasi-diplomat though he’s never been one, said “I don’t know how that’s going to work.”
For many of the military’s top leaders it seems, having a retired general like Allen outside of the military chain-of-command reporting to Obama is a sign of White House “micromanagement.” It also offers the possibility of conflicting messages between State and the Pentagon in the fight against ISIS.
Officials have launched an investigation into leaflets found near Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., which “may or may not be associated with the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State,” base spokesman Maj. Andrew J. Bormann said.
Marine Corps Times(h/t Mike F)A government employee came upon seven leaflets on Wednesday afternoon while running through the town of Quantico, Bormann told Marine Corps Times. The leaflets have a reversed image of the Islamic State group’s flag and writing in Arabic that is translated as “We are here from Mexico and came by train.” The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is leading an investigation to determine if the leaflets are authentic.
Did you also know that Ebola is a lot more contagious on dead bodies than on living ones? A Department of Defense memo confirms that DoD personnel – which include troops and civilians will have direct contact with “exposed remains” of Ebola victims.
Washington Post There is a second group of people especially at risk for infection: those who treat and bury the bodies of the dead, which are even more contagious than living Ebola patients. combination of inadequate infrastructure, logistical issues, conflicts with Western health care workers and burial traditions has contributed to widespread difficulties in containing the spread of the disease among mourners and those caring for the dead.
Among the traditional practices the WHO says cannot be followed with Ebola victims: family-led body preparation and religious rituals that require direct contact with the corpse. Muslim tradition, for instance, requires that family members of the same gendershould wash the body themselves before burial.
There are religiously driven Islamic rules about who can handle a dead body, and how. But those rules are often in direct conflict with the procedures health officials must follow to minimize the risk that the disease will spread, because after death is a particularly dangerous time for Ebola infection. “When the person has just died, that is when the body is most contagious,” WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic told The Post on Thursday. “It’s when the virus is overtaking the whole body.”
WNDWhile the DoD has issued new guidance on how military personnel and civilians will undergo pre- and post-deployment training while in the Ebola-affected areas of West Africa, buried in the 19-page memorandum in an attachment is an indication that the personnel will have direct exposure to the affected population.
The statement is in a memorandum from Jessica L. Write, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. Broken down into three levels, Level II training will be for personnel who “interact with the local populace,” and Level III training for personnel “assigned to supporting medical units or expected to handle exposed remains.”
If military members must complete the training, it appears to be contrary to previous statements from DoD that the 4,000 deployed U.S. troops will not be exposed to Ebola patients but will undertake only a “supportive role.”
For such exposure, there is a more intense level of training for U.S. military and civilian personnel than the minimally required training for all deployed service members.
Civilian personnel returning from the Ebola-affected areas won’t be required to undergo the 21-day mandatory quarantine described as “controlled monitoring for military members.” Instead, civilian personnel will have the option either of undergoing the 21-day required “controlled monitoring regimen” for military personnel or undergo an “active monitoring” regimen while being allowed to go about their daily business. Monitoring will include checking the individual’s temperature.
At a news conference, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said civilians cannot be forced to undergo the post-deployment “controlled monitoring regimen.” “Because they’re civilian employees and not uniformed service members, we legally can’t force them to undergo a controlled monitoring regimen the way we can with uniformed troops,” Kirby said.
WND recently reported that the estimated 4,000 U.S. troops being deployed in response to the Ebola crisis would undertake a “supportive” role to the Center for Disease Control and the U.S. Public Health Service in a mission officially dubbed Operation United Assistance. In that capacity, the troops would construct a command center and treatment and training centers along with housing for U.S. military and civilian personnel.
In exclusive interviews recently with WND, retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin and retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely condemned Obama’s decision to deploy troops to West Africa, arguing they could bring the virus to the United States or to other units. The generals said the mission of U.S. troops is to fight wars, not disease.
“There are plenty of other assets that America has if it wants to go over there and build hospitals and clearing centers and things like that,” Vallely said. “So, I think it is a very bad misuse especially when [U.S. troops] now are being asked to step up to the plate again in Iraq. So, I think it is a very bad decision on Obama’s part.”
Eating of bush meat in Africa is thought to be the way Ebola first started infecting humans.
Despite warnings from health officials villagers in West Africa continue to purchase and eat bats, rodents and bush meat.
Tahmooressi, 26, who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, has been held since March 31, when he mistakenly crossed into Mexico with three legally-purchased and registered guns in his truck.
FOX News A court-appointed psychiatrist confirmed that Tahmooressi has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Family spokesman Jonathan Franks said the judge released him without making a determination on the charge against him.
The family issued the following statement: “It is with an overwhelming and humbling feeling of relief that we confirm that Andrew was released today after spending 214 days in a Mexican Jail.”
The Florida man said he got lost on a California freeway ramp that sent him across the border with no way to turn back. His long detention brought calls for his freedom from U.S. politicians, veterans groups and social media campaigns.
Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, immediately issued a statement saying, “I am elated that Sgt. Tahmooressi has been ordered released from jail in Mexico. This is great, but overdue, news. I am pleased that both Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam and the judge on the case recognize that Sgt. Tahmooressi did not intend to violate Mexican law, and that his combat-related PTSD should be treated by specialists in the United States.”
Our military has to hide that they’re in the military on our own soil? Totally unbelievable. The Democrats have turned America into a safari park where the dangerous wild animals run free and the defenders of freedom are in cages. How about we put these Muslim threats in internment camps instead?
Clash Daily Through our confidential contacts in U.S. Military Special Operations, ClashDaily.com has been provided a copy of an unclassified Department of Defense directive, USNORTHCOM Force Directive 1-295, which essentially orders our troops into hiding here in their own sovereign territory and in Canada, whenever they leave their duty stations.
The directive, issued a week ago in close coordination with our Canadian allies, describes in detail the recent deadly sequence of Islamic jihad attacks on Canadian military members in Ottawa and near Montreal. It also describes the ongoing threats announced by ISIS, commanding their jihadi sleepers and “lone wolves” to murder any and all Americans possible (especially military members and their dependents) here at home.
The directive orders that all U.S. military personnel in North America who are in “public venues” or using commercial transportation are to refrain from wearing uniforms, insignias, or any other kind of identifying clothing or items which indicate their military affiliation, “unless complying with official travel instructions or other orders.”
While it is understood that the specific targeting of U.S. and Canadian military personnel by ISIS is very serious, very real, and has already proven disastrously deadly, one cannot help but consider the fact that we are basically, timidly, allowing the enemy to dictate the terms and rules of engagement here, on our turf.
It’s extremely unfortunate, and even more so because it doesn’t have to be this way.
How is it avoidable? As with other maddeningly timid rules of engagement during this long war — in areas of operation overseas and in anti-terrorism policies and operations everywhere — the present situation is the result of the craven politically-correct ideology that says when dealing with those who resemble the enemy and share the enemy’s nationalities, culture, and stated religion, we must err on the side of non-aggression and exert ourselves to avoid giving offense.
In the aftermath of the 1941 attack by the Imperial Japanese on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, our country’s leadership ordered the rounding up all of those here on our soil who had at least some surface liability to sympathize or otherwise be aligned with our mortal enemies. We didn’t screw around and unnecessarily put more American lives at risk. The threat was real.
While World War II escalated, we didn’t excessively wring our hands and worry more about whether we were violating the rights of people whose loyalties were legitimately in question than we did about preventing further attacks — we were at war, and our leaders made the clear decision to protect the homeland, and to win.
At that time, rounding up the second generation Japanese, and certain others related to the Axis powers, was the right thing to do given the circumstances. In her phenomenal and exhaustively researched book titled In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, author Michelle Malkin details the specifics of our government’s systematic evacuation of the Japanese and others away from critical areas and into comfortable, secured communities (“internment camps” replete with recreation facilities and movie theaters, etc.) until the threat was eliminated and the war was over.
Those who go around apologizing for all of that today are in the same league of dhimmis, derelicts, doofuses, and outright traitors who squashed the Phoenix Memo prior to Sept. 11th, 2001, and who prevented FBI counter-terrorism agents from ever communicating with each other at all out of excessive concern for “sensitivities” and “appearances” (recall Clinton deputy Jamie Gorelick’s increased “wall of separation” between law enforcement and intelligence units).
They are the same “progressives” who still refuse to secure our borders against illegal and dangerous foreign invasions and crime networks, and who continually release the worst of the worst of our enemy’s warriors and top commanders from Guantanamo Bay. They are the same worthless enablers of terror attacks who ignored numerous red flags to let the underwear bomber get on the plane in Africa, bound for Detroit, and who poo-pooed the Russians’ warnings about the Tsarnaev brothers prior to the Boston Marathon bombings.
They are the same people among the liberal vanguard of multiculturalist Canadian political bureaus who made sure that the murderous jihadis of last week, already known to security personnel as posing some degree of threat, were left free to plot and carry out their attacks.
They are the psychotically stubborn people in the media and in office who do everything they can to not call last week’s jihad hatchet murder rampage against New York City cops exactly what it was, lest that assessment “contribute to negative stereotypes” of Muslims/minorities — until they have completely exhausted the fetid reservoir of diversity-correctness and are forced to acknowledge the facts.
They do everything they can to marginalize and vilify voices like mine and ours, when we call for more aggressive measures to contain and eliminate the broader threat posed by followers of Mohammed in this modern era.
They are the alleged “authorities” who say that instead of aggressively rounding up and/or otherwise profiling young Muslim men who pose at least some degree of threat of being aligned with jihad extremism, we must order our military personnel to go incognito in the very land our security forces and citizens could, instead, readily secure, if those so-called authorities would simply let us do it.
Unfortunately, all of that makes perfect sense, given the circumstances — circumstances which have resulted from the ongoing failure of leadership and deliberate policy decisions guided by the groveling, apologetic, anti-American ideology which says it’s more important to protect the feelings and the military academies (mosques) of the enemy than it is to protect innocent lives like little 8-year-old Martin Richard, murdered by a Tsarnaev brothers’ bomb at the Boston Marathon.
If we ever have sound leadership in this country again while the threat of Islamic jihad exists, any Muslims on our soil will cautiously hide their religious garb/affiliation while our troops proudly wear their uniform of our nation on their way home off-base or on their lunch break at the McDonald’s outside the post gate.
The alert is titled “Recent Threats and Individual Protective Measures.”
The alert lists 11 protective steps that require employees to alter their ways of life, including:
⦁ Remove decals and other identifiers from clothing and vehicles.
⦁ Vary travel routes.
⦁ Avoid large gatherings and places where people congregate.
⦁ Guard what you post on Facebook and Twitter.
⦁ Do not post anything that links you to the Defense Department.