Did you know - Report: Rand Paul calls for scrutiny of Muslims

CSM Michael J. Uhlig You are correct. I just don't think any of the politicians running for POTUS get that, nor do our current serving congressman. When and how quickly will plans be put into place to take care of our soldiers at these locations? One life lost is cause to make changes immediately (well thought out changes and not "knee jerk" reactions) either. You get it CSM!

yes sir, I agree with you on that. Col. sir, I am with you on the politicians, that are running and already in office, not truly having their eye on what is important .

I'm am really tired of Political correctness. Still trying to figure out how and why it got started....but it seems to get worse and worse.

I too am not a fan of Rand Paul....however, he may have a valid point.

agreed. it seems the followers of ISIS come from many different countries

COL Ted Mc, I honestly believe that someone can tell America what they really think and be elected. Now I have to admit that it would be an outside chance, but anything is possible. Furthermore, I believe we as a people can still disagree with a politician and still respect him for his opinion and his beliefs. Personally I think W was a moron of the highest order who let others think for him on history changing decisions such as the invasion of Iraq. BUT, I respected the office. I find many can't do that with our current president and I have to admit am somewhat disappointed by those that can't.

What I will promise is that anything I post on here will my honest and considered opinion. I will be wrong to some peoples point of view but it will be the truth as I see it.

Trying to influence a politician wouldn't go for something as small as that because there would be no conflict of interest. As a matter of fact that would be something that falls within the politicians responsibility. And Politicians should read and understand the legislation they vote on. Thats like a state giving me a drivers license without knowing if I can drive! If you think about it that would be one of the instances where a politician is being influenced by someone with a monetary interest on legislation where it may actually hurt the politicians constituents. What I would say is that every politician should always have both sides of any item he has influence over so he/she can make a truly informed decision. Thats what staffers are for (I would think).

Lets face one fact. With a few exceptions no one is completely a Democrat or Republican. It's nuanced and subjective opinion we have and for reasons only we may understand on any given subject. Many times we may not even know or understand why we feel a particular way on a subject but know in our hearts that from our point of view that is whats right. One of the reasons I prefer coming here as opposed to Facebook is because here the one thing we all have in common here is that everyone on this site has served. This gives us of a very unique perspective on our country. Our country to us is not a etherial or metaphoric thing that we happen to live in for better or worse. I would bet that every man or woman that logs onto this site has a tangible LOVE of country. And, while we have different perspectives on any given subject the vast majority of us will subjugate that perspective for what is in the best interest of AMERICA and not necessarily what in our own best interest. For example I am not a fan of John McCain, BUT, I would defend him to my dying breath against the likes of Donald Trump. Why? Because John McCain put his ASS on the line day in and day out doing something inherently dangerous even among military aviators just taking off and landing on a ship. Then he flew attack bombing missions which meant he had to fly in very close to his targets and be shot at by anyone with a weapon, be it an anti aircraft gun/missile or bow and arrow. So no-one should ever disrespect his service.

There are people on here that I have had contentious debates on specific issues where we stood on diametrically opposed ends of a given subject (for example the Confederate Battle Flag) and could not reach common ground. But I would say without hesitation that if nothing else they have my respect on one subject. They served AMERICA! And that's more than 98% of our countries population. I know its not constitutional but I believe that any man or woman that holds high office should have done at some point in his/her life. That way they would truly understand the sacrifice that men and women make when sent into harms way.

COL Ted Mc, yes many of topics and suggestions I mentioned in my earlier post need fleshing out but that would be a Phd Thesis not a post on social media.

I look forward to many such discussions in the future with all on this site.

With Respect,

SN Earl Robinson

SN Earl Robinson - Seaman; While ONE thing that "staffers" do is give their principal "both sides" of an issue, the MAIN thing they do is give their principal the stuff that will support what their principal wants to do. (The go0vernment doesn't run like the military - when you are wrong in the government it isn't YOUR men that die.

I agree that - sometimes - an appointment to West Point (to stick with my example) would not be a conflict of interest. But - take the (theoretical) case of two potential appointees - [a] one of whom would be an outstanding officer but whose family has next to no political/financial connections at all and [b] the other of whom would make (on a good day [going downhill {with the wind behind their back}]) an "average" officer but whose family has a great deal of political/financial clout - which one of them do you think would get the appointment from Senator Foggboundz? If you picked [a] you are whistling in the dark. [ASIDE - I don't know about the Navy, but an "average" officer in the Army is likely to be found some completely obscure position and left there until they realize that their "career" ended about 10 seconds after their first annual fitness report (at which time they are likely to go into politics and tout their "veteran" status as loudly as they can).]

I agree with you that the vast majority of Americans are neither 100% "Republicans" nor are they 100% "Democrats". That, however, doesn't mean either that they know where their personal views actually differ from those of the "Movers & Shakers" of the party they will vote for as soon as they can figure out the difference between the " [R] " or the " [D] " printed on the ballot next to the candidate's name.

As to "America, the Ideal" I agree 100%. I have met very few people in the military who weren't there because they wanted to serve their country (initial enlistees exempted). Those I have encountered I tried to weed out of my unit as fast as possible.

HOWEVER, I do NOT support the idea that EVERY politician MUST have served in the military. There are many people who would make conscientious and dedicated legislators that have absolutely no desire to join the military and I don't believe that the country should be deprived of that pool of talent (especially when that pool of talent was artificially restricted for over fifty years).

COL Ted Mc I was not saying every politician should have served I'm saying that every President should have served because they would make a much better decision maker in military matters be it pay, equipment needed, support structures (be it family or military structural) and things of that nature. I know all too well about delegation of responsibilities as I do a lot of that in the corporate environment and I well understand that the President takes the advice of generals and appointed experts on ALL matters but the concept of truly understanding the role the military plays in our society is something that should be understood without having an advisor explain it to him/her.

SN Earl Robinson - Seaman; You have a good point.

Now, if only we can find rich veterans who were brought up in poverty and who belong to discriminated minorities while also belonging to the majority and who have chronic illnesses while leading an active sporting life and who left school in Grade 6 before completing their University education and are in a firmly committed heterosexual marriage to a trans-sexual partner after being widowed and later divorced we are likely to have a President who is marginally OK. Once you have found that person, check to see if their membership in the Beth-Israel Islamic Church of Jesus is current.

Seaman, you do NOT elect the President of the United States of America simply to benefit the US military.

PS - If you think that someone who "has served" by spending three years as directly appointed Captain Cryptoanalyst in the Pentagon is going to actually know much about anything military you are going to be highly disappointed.

SFC (Join to see) - Staff; Properly done "Profiling" is good. Improperly done "Profiling" is bad.

"Knee jerk Profiling" is almost always "Profiling" that is being done badly.

The US government is almost invariably involved in "Knee jerk Profiling" these days (and executing even that badly).

Face it, a three year old isn't likely to be enough of a terrorist to warrant being placed on the "No Fly List" (crying and dirty diapers exempted) and a someone who prohibits them from flying because "their name is on the No Fly List" probably doesn't have a clue what they are actually looking for.

100% agree sir. But I think at this point we are past the knee jerk phase of it. And if after the last 14 years of war we aren't, then that says a lot about us as a people. The frustrating thing is that they don't even acknowledge it. They keep calling it everything but what it is, violent extremist islam. If it looks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and straps a bomb on itself like a terrorist, and you do nothing about it out of politically correct fear of offending someone, don't come crying to me when they blow up your house, car, train station, plane, etc.

SFC (Join to see) - Staff; You have a good point. If "the enemy" has got you into a situation where you can't even name them - they have gone a long way towards winning.

AND, if "the enemy" has got you into a situation where you are going after EVERYONE who shares ANY characteristic with them - they have gone an even longer way towards winning (unless you are prepared to take the rap for genocide or are so arrogant that you believe that you have the right to commit war crimes without any fear of repercussions).

From a PR point of view, the US would be MUCH better served if it completely dropped "Islamic" from any discussion of terrorism and concentrated on "murderous sociopaths who are unfit to live in any civilized society". This makes it VERY difficult for ANYONE to support them unless they want to come out and publicly support "Murderous and Arbitrarily Oppressive Oligarchy" as a form of "civilized society" - which is pretty hard to sell to the masses.

TSgt (Join to see) That is a good perspective. I agree that it is early enough in the race that this won't affect his ratings up or down at this point. We are just waiting on the White House or someone in leadership to say; we are looking into several different strategies to keep our service members safe from harm and their guests in these types of locations.

Let's hope they don't keep us waiting too long!

I'm pretty sure what he said will appeal to his Xenophobic Base.

Stand by

I believe i have discovered a Domestic Espionage Operation run by State side operators. I have reported this matter to an Aid/Staff ( Mr.LIN ) member of United States SENATOR Chuck Grassley and the NYPD -

Inspector Generals Office run by ( Mr.EURE ). In both cases my E-Mail communication / interaction were blocked / intercepted. It is only by chance i was able to discover this truth just last month (03/2015). In both cases

i mention the problem along with details of this criminal on going unlawful surveillance of a private citizen & Veteran. I'm sure that in each instance the party doing the surveillance contacted the staff of both the elected

and appointed official. And further more , the staff of both officials have not been honest about the matter. If true , there is a major cover-up and the possible existence of a covert program. Please help me obtain the

truth , help me force the staff of both the elected official and the appointed official to come clean. My fear is that the program is related to an 'F.B.I.- COINTELPRO or DHS covert operation known as the **(NO-WORK-

LIST)**. Thank you - Carl http://www.gofundme.com/rm8rg5c (info.ony, not seeking donations)

Here is how the “No-Work List” works. If one has been put on the list the list due to behaviors that the FBI or DHS or some other USG agency has identified as defined by their “domestic terror activities description list” or for any arbitrary reason, the person’s employer receives a visit from an FBI agent or a DHS agent and is shown a “national security letter to read, but which cannot be kept. The employer is told something to the effect, “this employee is a suspected domestic terrorist”, or “has been associating with known terrorists”, or something like that, and “we believe it would be safer for your employees if he were not employed here any longer”.
The letter is taken back, the employer is informed that it is a 10,000 USD fine and up to ten years in a federal prison to disclose the contents of the letter or the visit. A business card is left by the agent and the employer is told, we have a special department that will help you find a way to release this individual and make sure that any legal actions by she/he goes nowhere because we have arrangements with court clerks and can make sure such cases get to one of our judges. Numerous times such a visit is made to a potential employer to prevent a federal whistle-blower from being hired. As many now realize this is the norm for most whistle-blowers that they cannot get jobs even when by far the best qualified applicant.
As many now realize when placed on the “No-Fly List” or one of these special watch lists, there is no appeal process available and mid-level supervisory agents have the power to do this with absolutely no oversight. Now this is a true definition of abject tyranny. When Senator Ted Kennedy was placed on the “No-Fly List”, he tried numerous times to get his name taken off, but never succeeded nor could he ever get any explanation who put him on the list, if it was a mistake or why he was on the list. And he was a powerful US Senator, Go figure. Yes, this is pure tyranny by mid level asinine abusers using color of law to violate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Washington Post reported in 2010 that there were 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies in 10,000 locations in the United States that are working on counterterrorism, homeland security, and intelligence, and that the intelligence community as a whole includes 854,000 people holding top-secret clearances.[2] According to a 2008 study by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, private contractors make up 29% of the workforce in the U.S. intelligence community and cost the equivalent of 49% of their personnel budgets.United States Intelligence Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
image
United States Intelligence Community - Wikipedia, the...
The United States Intelligence Community (I.C.) is a federation of 17 separate United States government agencies that work separately and to...
View on en.wikipedia.org