US military presence in Africa growing in small ways

WASHINGTON — Amid a surge of Islamic militancy in North Africa, a team of fewer than 50 U.S. special operations troops with a single helicopter arrived at a remote base in western Tunisia last month.

Their mission: train Tunisian troops in counterterrorism tactics.

The operation was one of dozens of U.S. military deployments in Africa over the last year, often to tiny and temporary outposts. The goal is to leverage American military expertise against an arc of growing instability in North Africa and many sub-Saharan countries, from Mali in the west to Somalia in the east.

The small-scale operations by the Pentagon’s 6-year-old Africa Command reflect an effort to avoid provoking anti-U.S. militants in the region — and wariness of getting drawn into new conflicts after 13 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. commanders for Africa face tight limits on the forces and equipment they can put on the ground or in the air, despite responsibility for a vast geographic area.

Classified guidance approved by the White House last fall called for the Pentagon to “deter” terrorist attacks from Africa on U.S. territory, facilities or allies without creating a large military footprint, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified material.

Based in Stuttgart, Germany, Africa Command has only about 2,000 military and civilian personnel assigned to coordinate U.S. defense programs in about 38 African countries, although 5,000 or more U.S. troops are frequently on the continent for operations and training missions.

It’s still a tiny fraction of the combined forces under Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan and bases in the Middle East, or under Pacific Command, which has become a Pentagon priority since the White House announced a strategic “rebalancing” of forces to Asia in 2012.

U.S. military commanders working in Africa thus rely on small teams of special operations troops, U.S.-trained forces from friendly African countries, and European allies, especially France, that have stepped up their own military presence and operations.

In Niger, for example, U.S. and French air forces based at an airport in Niamey, the capital, are flying unarmed Reaper drones to gather intelligence. They conduct aerial surveillance across several Saharan countries where some members of the Tuareg minority group have joined Islamist warlords and farther south in Nigeria, U.S. military officers say.

Three violent extremist organizations are the chief U.S. concern. Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb is active in northern and western Africa, especially Mali, and is considered the greatest threat to Americans.

But U.S. troops also are advising the Nigerian army as it establishes a special operations command to combat Boko Haram — which has launched hundreds of violent attacks across Muslim-dominated northern Nigeria — and supporting African Union troops against extremist al-Shabab militants in Somalia.

The U.S. command acknowledged in January that it had sent a small team of advisers to Somalia in December, the first time American troops have been stationed there since militia fighters in Mogadishu, the capital, shot down two helicopters and killed 18 U.S. servicemen in the 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident.

“Most of the countries we’re dealing with don’t want a large U.S. presence,” said Army Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee Magee, the commander of a 130-soldier “crisis response” unit stationed in Djibouti, a tiny former French colony in the Horn of Africa, where the U.S. maintains its only major military base on the continent. National security adviser Susan Rice is scheduled to visit the base this weekend.

Known as the East Africa Response Force, Magee’s unit was formed after the September 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound and nearby CIA base in Benghazi, Libya. Africa Command was unable to send troops in time to help CIA and State Department security personnel fend off militants who stormed the compounds and left four Americans dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

If a U.S. diplomatic post in East Africa comes under attack or U.S. citizens need to be quickly evacuated, Magee said, his unit can deploy within 18 hours and up to 1,500 miles from Djibouti.

Another new quick reaction force of 550 Marines, stationed at an air base in Moron, Spain, is charged with responding to crises in North and West Africa, officials say. The force has six V-22 Ospreys, tilt-rotor aircraft that take off and land like helicopters, as well as two refueling tankers. They give the Marines the capability to fly thousands of miles to remote locations in Africa, said Col. Scott Benedict, the commander.

The Pentagon said Friday that the Spanish government had approved an expansion of the force to 850 Marines in April, with the number of aircraft increasing to 16.

Both units were sent to South Sudan in December to help evacuate Americans and guard the U.S. Embassy after fierce fighting broke out between rival armed factions.

But the operation also highlighted the risks the Pentagon faces when it seeks to intervene with light forces in remote places. Three Ospreys were hit by gunfire and had to abort their mission.

The operation in Tunisia highlights another challenge.

Government security forces have been battling militants from the banned Islamist movement Ansar al Sharia, one of the radical groups to emerge since the 2011 “Arab Spring” uprising that ousted President Zine el Abidine ben Ali. Tunisia has seen a sharp increase in suicide attacks and assassinations in the last two years.

But because of Tunisian government concern that the presence of U.S. soldiers could provoke public opposition, the Americans operate far from the deserts of southern Tunisia, Algeria and Libya, where attacks by rebel groups, tribal gangs and Islamist militants, some with ties to al-Qaida, have been increasing, the officials say.

“They’re not able to do a whole lot, and they are in a place where there isn’t a lot of activity,” said a senior military officer who requested anonymity in discussing sensitive details of the U.S. force in Tunisia.

Anne Wolf, a Tunis-based analyst who has written for the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, said even a small number of U.S. troops could inflame Tunisia’s tense security situation.

“Any involvement of foreign troops would risk provoking further responses from violent Salafists,” she said, referring to Tunisia’s Sunni Muslim extremists. “It would confirm their allegations that the government is controlled by foreign powers who are meddling into Tunisian affairs.”

Except for major exercises, Africa Command officials normally don’t announce deployments for reasons of operational security. They confirmed the current mission in western Tunisia, but the statement had few details, including how long the troops would remain.

“At the request of the government of Tunisia,” U.S. troops are conducting “an episodic training event … after months of planning” that “improves the capabilities of Tunisian forces to protect civilians from current and emerging threats,” the statement reads.

Senators: US Should ‘Drop’ Karzai

Hope His Successor More Amenable to Occupation

With Afghan President Hamid Karzai angrily complaining about civilian deaths in a January 15 US air attack and still not accepting US demands to sign off on the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), US Senators are condemning him, and urging the US to drop official support for him for the last few months of his term in office.

AfghanistanThe BSA would formalize the US occupation of Afghanistan “through 2024 and beyond,” and while White House officials are still talking up a largely empty threat to end the occupation, the Senators are saying they should just ignore Karzai until the election, and hope his successor will be more amenable to the idea of another decade-plus of US occupation.

The US has been angry with Karzai off and on for years, but with the BSA more or less stalled, every little comment, including criticism of civilian deaths in US air strikes or a judicial order to release detainees the US wants jailed but has no evidence against has officials convinced Afghanistan is openly flaunting US interests.

Sen. Carl Levin (D – MI), determined to see the occupation continue, says the US has to “get beyond Karzai” and realize that he’s not going to give in, but rather that the deal should be pushed to his successor.

President Obama gave Karzai an ultimatum to sign the deal by December 31 of last year or face a full withdrawal. Karzai didn’t sign, and the US continues to push the ultimatum back a bit, but with elections just a few months away, it seems to be neither here nor there anymore, and officials are just looking for chances to spite Karzai on his way out.

by Jason Ditz

Military brass, behaving badly

Files detail a spate of misconduct dogging armed forces

Brig. Gen. Bryan T. Roberts [Pictured above] publicly warned his troops at Fort Jackson, S.C., last spring that he and the Army had “zero tolerance for sexual harassment and sexual assault.” Here’s what the Army didn’t tell the soldiers: At the time, Roberts himself was under investigation by the military over allegations that he physically assaulted one of his mistresses on multiple occasions.

Martin P. Schweitzer, a commander with the Army’s legendary 82nd Airborne Division, was respectful and polite when he met a female member of Congress to discuss matters at Fort Bragg, N.C. Afterward, however, he couldn’t resist tapping out e-mails to two other generals, describing the lawmaker, Rep. Renee L. Ellmers (R-N.C.), as “smoking hot” and jokingly referring to explicit sexual acts.

 Roberts, Schweitzer and Uhrich

David C. Uhrich, a one-star Air Force general, kept a vodka bottle in his desk at Joint Base Langley-Eustis and repeatedly drank on duty, so much so that another officer told investigators that “if he did not have his alcohol, the wheels would come off,” according to the findings of an Air Force probe. The married Uhrich later sought treatment for a drinking problem, but not before he was also investigated for allegedly having an affair, something prohibited under military law.

The embarrassing episodes are described in previously undisclosed files of military investigations into personal misconduct by U.S. generals and admirals. Along with about two dozen other cases obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, the investigations add to a litany of revelations about misbehaving brass that have dogged the Pentagon over the past 15 months and tarnished the reputation of U.S. military leadership.

[Read excerpts of reports on Roberts, Schweitzer and Uhrich]

Since November 2012, when an adulterous affair felled David H. Petraeus, the CIA director and most renowned Army general of his generation, the armed forces have struggled to cope with tawdry disclosures about high-ranking commanders.

The Navy has been humbled by a spiraling sex-and-bribery scandal, as well as a gambling incident involving a three-star admiral who authorities say they caught using counterfeit chips at a riverfront casino. The Air Force relieved a nuclear commander after investigators said he went on a drinking binge in Moscow. The Army fired one general for allegedly groping a woman, forced another to retire after he accepted expensive gifts from a foreigner, and demoted its top commander in Africa after an investigation found he treated himself and his wife to a $750-a-night Caribbean hotel suite at taxpayer expense.

The subject is painfully sensitive inside the Pentagon, where many generals and admirals say they are appalled but reluctant to openly criticize their peers.

“It’s just offensive when you see people do some of the things we’ve seen. It’s just completely offensive,” said an Army brigadier general who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “As officers, we ought to be held to a higher standard. Some of this stuff you’re seeing with folks is just completely unacceptable.”

Martin L. Cook, a professor of military ethics at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., said the recent eruption of misconduct is “frankly a puzzle to everybody.” One factor, he added, may be that as officers climb higher in the ranks they become insulated and fewer people are willing to challenge or question them.

In his ethics classes, Cook said, military leaders recognize “they’ve got a major trust problem with the American people. . . . They’re deeply ashamed of it. It’s horror. They say, ‘Oh, we can’t have that happening.’ ”

Frustration is rising all the way up the chain of command.

In late 2012, then-Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta ordered a review of ethical standards for senior military officers. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded with a memo outlining several new training and evaluation programs for commanders and their staffs.

Since then, however, even more cases have come to light and consternation has continued to fester at the Pentagon.

On Dec. 12, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued an unpublicized directive to Dempsey and the military chiefs, asking for another ethics review, this time of how the military teaches “core values and ethical leadership” to its officers. A response is due Feb. 14. “The secretary takes seriously all lapses and failures in leadership,” said Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, Hagel’s spokesman.

At the very top, the commander in chief has taken notice.

“President Obama expects the nation’s senior military leaders to demonstrate the highest standards of ethical conduct,” Caitlin Hayden, a White House spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “The President has conveyed to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that instances of senior general and flag officers not living up to these standards must be addressed effectively.”

The Defense Department and the armed services closely guard the results of their misconduct investigations involving generals and admirals. The Air Force stamps its reports “Sensitive Material” and “For Official Use Only” and affixes a warning: “Do Not Open Cover Without A Need To Know.”

The Washington Post filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps for reports of inspector general investigations into senior official misconduct since Oct. 1, 2012. After a three-month review, which included an extra layer of checks from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the services released 30 partially redacted reports. A large majority concerned generals in the Army and Air Force.

Some of the probes involve relatively minor infractions of military regulations or policy. But the most common transgressions are related to sexual or personal misbehavior. In seven of the cases, investigators determined that generals had affairs or engaged in “inappropriate” relationships.

The Uniform Code

While the public may have become accustomed to stories of philandering politicians or ethical breaches by corporate leaders, such behavior is still considered intolerable inside the military, especially for generals and admirals who are expected to set a sterling example.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits adultery or “improper” personal relationships, and officers can be prosecuted or disciplined for such offenses.

Just as significantly, however, military leaders are under intense scrutiny from Congress and the White House for how they respond to sexual assault or abuse in the ranks. Reports of such cases have escalated in recent years. Some lawmakers have tried to strip commanders of their authority to oversee those investigations, arguing that they lack legal training and are too often insensitive to the problem.

In the April 4 edition of the Fort Jackson Leader, a newspaper published for the South Carolina post where the Army conducts much of its basic training, Brig. Gen. Roberts let it be known where he stood on the issue.

“Team Jackson, let me be clear, the Army has zero tolerance for sexual harassment and sexual assault, and so do I,” Roberts wrote. “I view sexual harassment and assault as an enemy threat. . . . All of us have a shared role in ridding our ranks of this cancerous conduct.”

At the time, Roberts — the top commander at Fort Jackson — was under criminal investigation by the Army. Two months earlier, a woman filed a complaint alleging that she had been carrying on an affair with the married general for 18 months and that the relationship had turned violent on four occasions, according to an investigative report from the Army inspector general.

Most recently, the woman told investigators, the pair got into an argument in the general’s quarters after she inadvertently called his wife on her cellphone. The woman said she slapped the general; in turn, he “bit her lip,” and she suffered an eye injury. Although the woman said their sex was consensual, she added that she needed medical attention after two previous “physical altercations” with Roberts, according to the Army inspector general’s investigative report.

As Army investigators began making inquiries, they found a second woman, a subordinate civilian employee, who told them she, too, was involved in a consensual sexual relationship with Roberts.

Roberts’s phone records led investigators to a third woman, also a subordinate civilian employee. The records showed the two had called each other more than 900 times over six months, mostly at night or on weekends. That woman denied having a sexual relationship with Roberts, calling him a “boss and friend.” When investigators asked why the general called her so often on weekends and at odd hours, she replied that “it could be to ‘talk about motorcycles or work-related issues,’ ” according to the inspector general’s report.

In May, the Army announced that it had suspended Roberts for allegedly having a physical altercation with a mistress, but it gave no other details. In July, the Army announced that the general had been relieved of his command position at Fort Jackson.

In August, after a closed disciplinary hearing, the Army found Roberts guilty of assaulting the first mistress on one occasion and committing adultery with her over a nine-month period. He was fined $5,000 and issued a written reprimand but retained his rank as a one-star general.

Gary Myers, Roberts’s attorney, said that he presented a case for self-defense in response to the assault charge but that it was rejected by the Army.

“This, like many cases, is far more complex than the documents would suggest,” Myers said. The general, he added, “has expressed deep regret for the relationship with the woman and has accepted responsibility for that relationship.”

In addition to the discipline imposed on Roberts for adultery and assault, the Army inspector general concluded that he had engaged in “inappropriate relationships” with the other two women and improperly used government e-mail and phones to communicate with them.

His attorney declined to comment on those findings but said the general’s case “has absolutely nothing to do with sexual assault.”

The Army said Roberts remains on active duty and is assigned to the Pentagon as a special assistant to the Army’s vice chief of staff. The general will be “retiring soon,” Myers said.

Lewd e-mails

Last summer, Army prosecutors were combing through the e-mail accounts of Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, a commander facing a court-martial on sexual assault, adultery and other charges , when they uncovered a raunchy exchange with two other generals.

The exchange started in March 2011, when Schweitzer, then a colonel and the deputy commander for operations for the 82nd Airborne Division, held a meeting with Ellmers, a newly elected House member whose district included Fort Bragg.

Schweitzer gave a pointed summary of the meeting in an e-mail to a superior, Maj. Gen. James Huggins, while copying Sinclair, then a fellow colonel and an 82nd Airborne commander.

“First — she is smoking hot,” Schweit­zer wrote. “Second — briefing went well . . . she was engaging . . . had done her homework. She wants us to know she stands with us and will work/push to get the Fort Bragg family resourced.”

That, and what came next, led prosecutors to turn over the e-mail chain to the Army inspector general for a full investigation.

“He sucks 🙂 still needs to confirm hotness,” Sinclair teased in a reply.

More than an hour later, Schweitzer responded with an apology for the delay, saying he had masturbated “3 times over the past 2 hours” after the meeting with the congresswoman.

In releasing its investigative report in response to The Post’s Freedom of Information Act request, the Army censored the most offensive e-mail in its entirety, citing personal privacy interests. It also redacted Ellmers’s name and all references to her position as a member of Congress.

The Post obtained an original, uncensored copy of the e-mails from another source.

In a statement released Friday, Ellmers called the e-mails “entirely inappropriate.” She said she was first told about them two weeks ago by Gen. John F. Campbell, the Army vice chief of staff, as officials were preparing to disclose the inspector general’s report to The Post.

“I am pleased with the corrective actions that are taking place and how they handled this very difficult situation,” Ellmers added.

Schweitzer, now a brigadier general who works at the Pentagon for the Joint Staff, did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.

Last summer, according to the report, he told Army investigators that his e-mails were “childish” and “truly stupid.” He also called himself “an honorable man,” adding: “I am not perfect. This horrible attempt at a joke was simply that, a horrible attempt at a joke.”

The Army inspector general concluded that Schweitzer had “failed to demonstrate exemplary conduct” and cited him for using his government e-mail account “for an unauthorized purpose.”

In response, the Army placed a “memorandum of concern” in Schweitzer’s personnel file. It is also holding his previously announced promotion to major general “in abeyance pending formal review,” according to Army spokesman George Wright.

Wright noted that inspector general probes are “administrative actions” and not criminal investigations. Speaking generally, he defended the level of discipline that the Army imposes in such cases, calling it “appropriate and commensurate with the level of the allegations.”

“It is serious, and it impacts these officers personally and professionally,” Wright said. “There never was any attempt to sweep anything under the rug.”

In the case of Uhrich, the married Air Force general who was reported for drinking vodka on duty and allegedly having an affair, several military officers and civilian employees who witnessed his behavior told investigators they were personally offended by it.

“It’s very unbecoming,” said an Air Force major, who like the other witnesses was not identified by name in the inspector general’s report. With “the stories that are coming out about General Officers and the things that they’re doing, I think it’s . . . not only bad timing but it’s very, uh, poor judgment.”

Added a male civilian employee: “Morally it’s wrong. I think legally it’s wrong. . . . I watch the news. Everybody watches the news. We see what happens to generals and to people who had this happen.”

A female civilian worker told investigators that she viewed Uhrich’s conduct as “messed up.” She added,“He is [supposed to be an] upstanding, high-ranking officer that represents the United States Air Force and that is uncalled for.”

The Air Force inspector general determined that Uhrich had engaged in an improper “romantic relationship” with the woman, a civilian who worked at a military base in Texas, and that he brought “discredit to himself” by repeatedly drinking on duty. An Air Force spokeswoman said he received “verbal counseling” as a result and remains on active duty.

Uhrich did not testify under oath or provide a statement to the Air Force inspector general. He declined to comment in response to a request placed through an Air Force spokeswoman.

President Obama Reportedly Told His Aides That He’s ‘Really Good At Killing People’

This will not go over well for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

According to the new book “Double Down,” in which journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann chronicle the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama told his aides that he’s “really good at killing people” while discussing drone strikes.

Peter Hamby of The Washington Post noted the moment in his review of the book.

The reported claim by the commander-in-chief is as indisputable as it is grim.

Obama oversaw the 2009 surge in Afghanistan, 145 Predator drone strikes in NATO’s 2011 Libya operations, the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and drone strikes that killed the Pakistani Taliban leader and a senior member of the Somali-based militant group al-Shabab this week.

His administration also expanded the drone war: There have been 326 drone strikes in Pakistan, 93 in Yemen, and several in Somalia under Obama — upwards of 4,000 people overall — compared to a total of 52 strikes under George Bush.

In 2011 two of those strikes killed American-born al-Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki and his American-born, 16-year-old son within two weeks.

Under Obama U.S. drone operators began practicing “signature strikes,” a tactic in which targets are chosen based on patterns of suspicious behavior and the identities of those to be killed aren’t necessarily known. (The administration counts all “military-age males” in a strike zone as combatants.)

Furthermore, the disturbing trend of the “double tap” — bombing the same place in quick succession and often hitting first responders — has become common practice.

Obama has also embraced the expansion of capture/kill missions by Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) after it developed into the primary counterterrorism tool of the Bush administration.

One JSOC operator told investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, author of “Dirty Wars: The World Is A Battlefield,” that global operations under Obama became “harder, faster, quicker — with the full support of the White House.”

Scahill, who also made a “Dirty Wars” documentary, told NBC News that Obama will “go down in history as the president who legitimized and systematized a process by which the United States asserts the right to conduct assassination operations around the world.”

Needless to say, a lot of  innocent people  have  been killed  along with combatants.

So although President Obama has proven to be “really good at killing people,” the demonstration has not necessarily been noble.

Retired Army Captain Takes To Facebook Warning DHS Preparing For War!

This comes as dire news. A retired Army Captain has got to the point that he is going viral with information of the gravest nature. He states that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for war against the American People.

This is not a something to take lightly. He points to all the ammunition being bought up by DHS. He has been reposting this letter since March 2013 and it hit my wall. I went to look and it is indeed a live link Facebook Account.  He has updated the status quite often and the last post he commented on was October 31, 2013.

Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America

Dear friends, the following is a copy of my correspondence with Senator Cornyn concerning the arming of the DHS for war against the citizens of our nation.  You are each encouraged to copy and properly amend this letter to send to your own senators and members of the U.S. House.  Further, I am somewhat overwhelmed at the response to my posts leading up to this letter on this issue.  At this point almost 3,000 of you have shared my original post, I have 994 new friends requests, 61 messages, and 70 new comments to process.  Please be patient with me and pray that this window of communication remains open to all of us as we respond to this threat against our Constitution and our people.  I am awed by you, by your positive response, and your wonderful support.  We each have a role to play in standing against this present tyranny.  Part of that proper response is sending them a letter like this from YOU, and following it up to make sure it remains a “hot button” issue that must be resolved.  God bless you as you honor your oaths and your obligations as citizens of this free nation.  May we once again know honorable leadership and peace at home.  With all sincerity and respect–Resolved, Captain Terry M. Hestilow, United States Army, Retired.

The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas

United States Senate

517 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

Re:  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.

Dear Senator Cornyn,

It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America.  To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.

Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

the Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.

This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens!  This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America!  If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years.  We have no choice if we honor our oaths.

The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD).  Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible.  One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation.  The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power.  We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!

Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts.  We stand today at a cross-road.  Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy?  Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home.  You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home.  We are counting upon you.  We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.

I know that this letter demands much of you.  We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office.  We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.

We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!

Resolved,

Captain Terry M. Hestilow

United States Army, Retired

Fort Worth, Texas~Facebook.com

Get Involved...

Share ideas or articles.