Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

SAN DIEGO (The Blaze/AP) – Yesterday, the Blaze reported that the military “handled” a situation involving Marine snipers who posed with a logo resembling a Nazi symbol. But now, just a day after the initial report made its way around the blogosphere, news is breaking that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has asked the Marine Corps to take another look at its investigation that concluded the men should not be disciplined. As we reported, Lt. Col. Stewart Upton initially said in a statement that the Marines’ action was unacceptable. While no harsh penalties were paid by the soldiers involved, the sentiment was that, to a degree, the situation had been contended with. Apparently, verbal warnings, though, weren’t enough. Pentagon press secretary George Little says that Panetta asked the Marine Corps Friday to look into the situation “and to take appropriate action.”

This is the image that was posted on the Knight's Armament Blog

CNN reports that, following the initial discovery of the image, the Marines’ commander decided not to proceed with disciplinary action. However, those individuals involved were told that such behavior wouldn’t be tolerated and that punishment would result if, indeed, they partook in similar conduct again. So, while the men were “punished” in the sense of receiving a warning and clarification as a result of their actions, no official military retribution was doled out — an action that is clearly now being revisited and reassessed. CNN continues : The Marine Corps said it became aware of the photo last November and investigated, but found it not to be racially motivated, according to a statement released by a Marine Corps spokesman, Lt. Col. Stewart Upton. “Those involved acknowledged that the symbol could be misinterpreted and is not in keeping with our Marine Corps ethos and values,” the statement said. Little, speaking in Washington, says racist and anti-Semitic symbols have absolutely no place alongside U.S. service members. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group, has demanded President Barack Obama order an investigation and hold the troops accountable.

Excerpt from:
Panetta Calls for New Probe Into Controversial Nazi SS Marine Photo

Tagged with:
 

White House hinting compromise on birth control (AP)

On February 7, 2012, in Uncategorized, by arlenschumer

AP – Hammered by Republicans and the Catholic Church, the White House hinted at compromise Tuesday as it struggled to calm an election-year uproar caused by its rule requiring religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control.

View original post here:
White House hinting compromise on birth control
(AP)

AP – The Obama administration on Saturday called for stepped up U.S.-European cooperation to isolate tyrannies like the Assad regime in Syria, promote democracy in the Arab World and beyond and repair damage from the global financial crisis.

Visit link:
Clinton: US, Europe must do more against tyrants
(AP)

AP – U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is reassuring Europe that it remains central to U.S. defense interests, even as the Obama administration is withdrawing two of the four Army brigades stationed on the continent.

Read more:
Panetta says US military not abandoning Europe
(AP)

Tagged with:
 

Scroll down for an update to this story: Last Sunday, Catholic priests across the country read an open letter to their parishioners. The letter condemned the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to force religious employers to cover the cost of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in its employees’ health-care coverage. The letter argued that the faithful could not and must not in good conscience comply with the HHS’ “unjust law.” However, Catholic chaplains in the U.S. military were “forbidden” from reading this letter. After Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains, sent out the letter to be read at Sunday masses, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication “forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief,” Business Insider ‘s Michael Dougherty reports. Military officials felt that “the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting,” according to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online , and the Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. “Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass,” Lopez writes. Despite these instructions, some chaplains read the letter anyway. Business Insider reports: More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop. Some reasoned that because the letter was not “politically driven,” and that it only sought to reaffirm Catholic teachings on sexual ethics and the “sanctity of life,” they would risk punishment and disobey instructions, one source involved told The Blaze. Anticipating repercussions for reading the letter, a confidential letter was sent to the chaplains instructing them to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment (via BI): The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq….he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge. Here is the Archdiocese for Military Services account of what happened regarding the letter, its public reading, and a newly-edited, government-approved version to be released (via National Review Online ): On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution. The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit.  The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel. Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants. Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter.  Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience. The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio’s statement from the other branches of service. Update : The decision to forbid the chaplains from reading the letter is an odd one. This is not the first time that the question of religious liberty and freedom of speech in the military has been brought up. In fact, the Pentagon was once sued by The Becket Fund for having issued gag orders against a Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi for being vocal supporters of H.R. 1122 (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997). The Becket Fund argued in court that the gag order “violated their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et . seq ,” according to Free Preach . The court agreed with The Becket Fund that the gag order was unconstitutional: What we have here is the government’s attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains’ free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants. 962 F. Supp. at 165. Free Preach writes: In particular, the court rejected all of the arguments advanced by the government to support their censorship of speech from the pulpit. For example, the government argued that it was not an important part of the plaintiffs’ religion to urge their congregations to contact Congress about particular moral or political issues. The court soundly rejected that argument, holding that it was not the role of the government “to determine whether encouraging parishioners to contact Congress [about a particular issue like] the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is an ‘important component’ of the [plaintiffs'] faiths.” Id . at 161. Moreover, the court held that “[e]ncouraging parishioners to contact Congress” about legislation addressing moral issues related to religious faith “appears to be no less important to the [plaintiffs' faith] than other religiously-motivated activity courts have held to be important enough to a religion such that its prohibition amounts to a substantial burden.” Id . The government then argued that the chaplains’ contemplated speech was “not religious” but merely “political.” The court rejected this argument also, holding that “it is not the role of this Court to draw fine distinctions between degrees of religious speech and to hold that religious speech is protected but religious speech with so-called political overtones is not.” Id . at 164. Finally, the court held that any interests advanced by the government for their censorship policy were “outweighed by the . . . chaplains’ right to autonomy in determining the religious content of their sermons.” Id . at 162. It is imperative to note that these same interests would likely be asserted by the government in the private freedom-to-preach context as well, and similar reasoning to reject such would apply. To summarize the holding: The State cannot interfere with the right of religious leaders to preach from the pulpit on political issues, even if those ministers are in the military [emphasis added]. Now, all that being said, and the legal and constitutional precedent having been set, the question is this: on what grounds did the U.S. military have right to forbid those chaplains from reading an open letter from the Archbishop during Sunday Mass? This is a breaking story. Updates will be added as they become available.

See the rest here:
U.S. Military Silences Catholic Chaplains From Speaking out Against Obama Admin Ruling

Tagged with:
 

The Daily Mail ran a story yesterday comparing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Russian James Bond villain Rosa Klebb . But Clinton also shares a striking resemblance to this Russian nesting doll:

Read the original post:
Hillary Clinton: Russian spy or Russian toy?

Great, just as the Obama administration confirmed that the U.S. will end its combat role at the end of 2013. The news is at London’s Daily Mail , ” So is it all worth it? Secret files reveal Taliban will retake control of Afghanistan when NATO troops withdraw “: The Taliban is set to return to power in Afghanistan when British and Coalition forces end their combat role in 2014, a damning leaked confidential report reveals. Despite 10 years of fighting by NATO forces and their huge sacrifices – 397 members of the British military alone have been killed and thousands wounded – the report says that in the past year there has been unprecedented interest, even from within the Afghan government, in joining the Taliban. And it points accusingly at Afghanistan’s neighbour Pakistan, a key ally of NATO, where powerful elements in the security and intelligence services support the Taliban and describes how insurgent leaders maintain homes within the heart of the capital Islamabad. Based on 27,000 interviews with over 4,000 Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners, the detailed report effectively questions the Coalition’s own assessment that it is winning the war in Afghanistan. The report – The State of the Taliban – was described as ‘devastating’ yesterday (W) by former soldier Ian Sadler, whose son Jack, a 21-year-old reservist serving with the Honourable Artillery Company, died in a roadside bomb blast in Helmand in December 2007. ‘It has been a waste of time operating in the way that the British have,’ he said, ‘Hearing details of the report makes me wonder why our soldiers were sent there in the way they were and the cost that has been paid.’ The report compiled by US forces describes how weapons and vehicles given to Afghan forces have in turn been passed on to the Taliban and says that Pakistan’s feared Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) is actively colluding with the insurgents by actually directing attacks. Continue reading . I can’t help but think that we’re screwed. Secretary of State Rice, upon leaving office, warned that if we wanted another 9/11, all we had to do was abandon Afghanistan. Let’s hope she was wrong. I’ll have more later.

Visit link:
Taliban Ready to Seize Power in Afghanistan After NATO Pulls Out

Wait, he’s did what? Via Daily Caller: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano praised President Barack Obama’s administration for taking the “most serious” and “sustained actions” to secure the border in U.S. history. “The Obama administration has undertaken the most serious and sustained actions to secure our borders in our nation’s history. And it is clear from every measure

Excerpt from:
DHS Chief Napolitano: Obama Has Taken “Most Serious And Sustained Actions To Secure Our Borders In History”…

Tagged with:
 

AP – The lineup of weapons the Pentagon has picked to fit President Barack Obama’s new forward-looking defense strategy, called “Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” features relics of the past.

Read the original here:
US weapons for future include key relics of past
(AP)

Jeffrey Lord, former White House political director under Ronald Reagan, is slamming a piece in National Review Online that accuses Newt Gingrich of spewing “insulting rhetoric” about Reagan while he was president. The National Review piece, written by former Reagan Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, has gained significant traction as many conservatives have come forward to question Gingrich’s electability. The former House Speaker has repeatedly cast himself as a ” loyal lieutenant of Reagan’s bold conservatism ” against the more timid, “Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney. Writing in the American Spectator , Abrams, Lord says, has “been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries.” But no more, he says, because Abrams has been “caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.” Some of the top examples Abrams cites come from a statement Gingrich made on the House floor in 1986. Lord obtained a copy of the speech, which he said Abrams is “grossly misrepresenting” as “some sort of anti-Reagan jihad:” Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says: • “Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism.” Gingrich then goes on — at Newtonian length — praising Reagan for Reagan’s understanding of Lenin, Reagan’s understanding of the real “purposes of a Soviet dictatorship” and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President’s appreciation of “the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire” and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom. In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt? • Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said — in full and in context: “The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.” In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan’s then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan’s anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that — to effectively institutionalize Reagan’s conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing “insulting rhetoric” at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol. You can read Lord’s full analysis here .

Read the original post:
Former Reagan Adviser Questions NRO Piece About Gingrich’s Gipper Critiques

Tagged with: