Saturday, December 22, 2012

Senator Whats-His-Name Died

↑see 'all-about-me' video above↑

Guns Are Not The Problem ...and the concealed carry permit

Note:There are four postings here including the videos at the bottom of this page.

1.  The following from NewsMax
The Ignorance of Gun Control Zealots
by Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s— after decades of ever-tightening gun ownership restrictions — there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.
You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem — including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.
There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic, and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.
Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

2.  The following from Exchange Gold
Speaker Boehner Can Stop Sen. Feinstein’s Gun Ban in Its Tracks
Since the horrific crime in Connecticut took place on Dec. 14, Democrats have paraded their plans for banning various categories of guns and gun shows across the national stage. Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) seems sure of herself, as do her two recent converts, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mark Warner (D-VA).
However, we must remember that none of this is a done deal -- it's not even close -- and that Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) can stop these gun grabs in their tracks when the legislation reaches the House.
And Boehner needs to know that that's what conservatives expect him to do.
The time for going along to get along has long past, because Democrats have proven willing to go along only with that which includes doing away with our constitutionally protected freedoms.
Other members of the GOP House leadership also need to know that this is what conservatives expect.
Even as I type this post, a friend who happens to be a military officer is emailing me from Utah to say there is widespread panic in that state as they anticipate the proposed bans. But we don't need to panic. Rather, we need to be diligent by holding our respective House Members' feet to fire (and Speaker Boehner's feet as well).
Republicans can stop this push as soon as it reaches the House.
There is a Congressional election in less than two years, and we each need to make it clear that conservatives will not be voting for any House member who lacks the courage to support the constitution at such a time as this.
---------___________________________________ ----------
3Texas town allows teachers to carry concealed guns
HARROLD, Texas (AP) — In this tiny Texas town, children and their parents don't give much thought to safety at the community's lone school — mostly because some of the teachers are carrying concealed weapons.
In remote Harrold, the nearest sheriff's office is 30 minutes away, and people tend to know — and trust — one another. So the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school.
"We don't have money for a security guard, but this is a better solution," Superintendent David Thweatt said. "A shooter could take out a guard or officer with a visible, holstered weapon, but our teachers have master's degrees, are older and have had extensive training. And their guns are hidden. We can protect our children."
In the awful aftermath of last week's Connecticut elementary school shooting, lawmakers in a growing number of states — including Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, South Dakota and Oregon — have said they will consider laws allowing teachers and school administrators to carry firearms at school.
Texas law bans guns in schools unless the school has given written authorization. Arizona and six other states have similar laws with exceptions for people who have licenses to carry concealed weapons.
Harrold's school board voted unanimously in 2007 to allow employees to carry weapons. After obtaining a state concealed-weapons permit, each employee who wants to carry a weapon must be approved by the board based on his or her personality and reaction to a crisis, Thweatt said.
Employees also must undergo training in crisis intervention and hostage situations. And they must use bullets that minimize the risk of ricochet, similar to those carried by air marshals on planes.
CaRae Reinisch, who lives in the nearby community of Elliott, said she took her children out of a larger school and enrolled them in Harrold two years ago, partly because she felt they would be safer in a building with armed teachers.
"I think it's a great idea for trained teachers to carry weapons," Reinisch said. "But I hate that it has come to this."
The superintendent won't disclose how many of the school's 50 employees carry weapons, saying that revealing that number might jeopardize school security.
The school, about 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth near the Oklahoma border, has 103 students from kindergarten through 12th grade. Most of them rarely think about who is carrying a gun.
"This is the first time in a long time that I've thought about it," said Matt Templeton, the principal's 17-year-old son. "And that's because of what happened" in Connecticut.
Thweatt said other Texas schools allow teachers to carry weapons, but he would not reveal their locations, saying they are afraid of negative publicity.
The Texas Education Agency said it had not heard of any other schools with such a policy. And the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence did not know of any other districts nationwide that allow school employees to carry concealed handguns.
But that may change soon.
Oklahoma state Rep. Mark McCullough said he is working on a bill that would allow teachers and administrators to receive firearms training through the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training, which would authorize them to carry weapons at school and at school events. Other states are proposing or considering similar measures.
However, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder this week vetoed legislation that would have allowed concealed weapons in schools, churches and day care centers, saying he seeks a more "thoughtful review" that includes school emergency policies and mental health-related issues.
In Texas, guns have an honored place in the state's culture, and politicians often describe owning a gun as essential to being Texan. At the state Capitol, concealed handgun license holders are allowed to skip the metal detectors that scan visitors.
Gov. Rick Perry has indicated he would prefer to give gun owners the widest possible latitude. Just days after the Connecticut attack, Perry said permit holders should be able to carry concealed weapons in any public place.
Last year, many Texas lawmakers supported a plan to give college students and professors with concealed handgun licenses the right to carry guns on campus, but the measure failed.
Opponents insist that having more people armed at a school, especially teachers or administrators who aren't trained to deal with crime on a daily basis, could lead to more injuries and deaths. They point to an August shooting outside the Empire State Building, where police killed a laid-off clothing designer after he fatally shot his former colleague. Nine bystanders were wounded by police gunfire, ricochets and fragments.
"You are going to put teachers, people teaching 6-year-olds in a school, and expect them to respond to an active-shooter situation?" said Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who called the idea of arming teachers "madness."
Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner said she would not have felt better if teachers at her children's Seattle school had been armed during a May shooting at a nearby cafe. A gunman killed four people at the cafe and another woman during a carjacking before killing himself. The school went on lockdown as a precaution.
"It would be highly concerning to me to know that guns were around my kids each and every day. ... Increasing our arms is not the answer," said Rowe-Finkbeiner, co-founder and CEO of
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, said focusing on arming teachers distracts from the "real things" that could help prevent a school shooting "and at worse it furthers a dangerous conversation that only talks about guns as protection without a discussion about the serious risks they present."
As the debate continues, Harrold's school plans to leave its policy unchanged.
"Nothing is 100 percent at all. ... But hope makes for a terrible plan, hoping that (a tragedy) won't happen," Thweatt said. "My question is: What have you done about it? How have you planned?"
Associated Press writers Juan A. Lozano in Houston and Nomaan Merchant in Dallas contributed to this report.
Don't Mess With Texas
----- ________________________________________-----

4.  The following from Bonzer Wolf
Feinstein Blocking National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Friday, April 20, 2012 at 7:35AM by Bonzer Wolf
Feinstein/gun collage by N. Hooben
One of the most radical left wing hypocrites in the country, Senator Diane Feinstein of California is blocking a vote on both bills that would require states to honor valid concealed carry gun permits from the other states.

Feinstein is a member of the ruling elite, who obtained a California concealed carry firearms license, while working relentlessly, to keep “peons” from all over the United States from carrying handguns.

Both reciprocity bills pending in the Senate were introduced by Democrats. Feinstein like Obama, is a member of the liberal fascist wing that controls the Democrat Party.
States are already required to recognize concealed carry of current and qualified retired law enforcement officers under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA).
LEO’s are citizens who serve the public. They are issued firearms primarily to protect themselves while carrying out there duties and responsibilities. Retired law enforcement officers are citizens with no law enforcement authority.
If a citizen is issued a driver’s license in his home state, all states are required to recognize the valid permit. Concealed carry licences/permits should not be treated any differently. It is the responsibility of the permit holder to know and adhere to the laws of the states where he operates a vehicle (laws vary from state to state). The same would apply to a concealed carry license under the proposed legislation.
Motor vehicle operators kill many thousands more people than concealed weapons permit holders in the United States.
Feinstein cited the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager killed in Florida, as one of the reasons she was applying the legislative brakes.
“In recent weeks, our nation has witnessed tragic gun violence in Sanford, Florida and in Oakland, California, which is only a short drive from my home. Notably, George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, had been issued a concealed carry permit under Florida law, even though he had previously been subject to a court order for domestic abuse of his ex-fiancĂ©e. Congress should heed the warnings of law enforcement and not force states to recognize the permits issued to individuals by other states.”
What law enforcement agencies are issuing a warning? Fascist Feinstein cites a restraining order that was issue without a hearing and is routine in most divorce cases in this country. Such restraining orders are a violation of due process and once lifted can not and should not be used to block Second Amendment civil rights.
The National Rifle Association said it would not be deterred in efforts to pass reciprocity legislation.
“We have to work harder to get 60 votes, and we’re prepared to do that,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said, referring to the number of senators needed to end a filibuster.
Contact your Senators TODAY to urge them to co-sponsor National Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation pending in the Senate.
Feinstein was first elected as senator in 1992 to fill a 2-year vacancy. She was reelected in 1994, 2000 and 2006, and is running in 2012 for reelection to the U.S. Senate. Feinstein is widely viewed as one of the most far left, gun hating Senators even though she was able to obtain a rare California concealed carry permit due to her status as a member of the ruling class.
She is one of the most dangerous liberals in America, a hypocrite who knows no bounds and intends ban guns except for the privileged members of the ruling class. Feinstein is famous for authoring and “championing” the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which prohibited the manufacture and sale of 19 types of assault firearms.
Feinstein, a San Francisco resident and former mayor, is the most staunch gun control radical in the Senate. Despite her stance, in the 1970s, she obtained a concealed firearms carry permit, and carried a handgun in California. At the time, her permit was the only such permit issued in San Francisco. This hypocrite is the female verison of Barack Hussein Obama. Voters who support these statist, liberal fascists are engaging in the most heinous of subversive anti-American activity.
Banning guns remains a priority with Democrats and the liberal main stream media. Feinstein tells CBS 60 Minutes that she will not bring up gun ban now. She’s obviously waiting for the re-election of gun banner, Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois, the only state in the country with a 100% ban on concealed gun carry.


Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Are you ready for WWIII ? (updated)

See updated video below...

Just a note: After seeing what the Russians are spending, now read this (from Obama & Company):
"Under the 2011 Budget Control Act, Panetta and the military service chiefs carved out $487 billion from planned spending over the next fiscal decade. But if members of Congress can’t reach a budget deal that finds equivalent savings, the sequestration mechanism will kick in and lop an additional half-trillion dollars off the Defense Department’s bottom line." ~ source Human Events


Why did United States attack Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan... Yemen?
Why are U.S. covert operatives helping destabilize Syria?
And why is the United States government so intent on taking down Iran in spite of the fact that Iran has not attacked any country since 1798?
When you look at the trajectory that we are on it doesn't make sense at all if you evaluate it based on what we are taught in school.
In fact it doesn't even make sense according to what is being presented by many in the alternative media.
But it makes perfect sense once you know the real motives of the powers that be,
In order to understand those motives we first have to look at history...
In 1945 the Bretton Woods agreement established the dollar as world reserve currency which meant that international commodities were priced in dollars. The agreement which gave the United States a distinct financial advantage was made under the condition that those dollars would remain redeemable for gold at a consistent rate of $35 dollars per ounce. The United States promised not print much money, but this was on the honor system, because the Federal Reserve refused to allow any audits or supervision of its printing presses.
In the years leading up to 1970 expenditures in the Vietnam war made it clear to many countries that the U.S. was printing far more money than it had in gold, and in response they began to ask for their gold back. This set off a rapid decline in the value of the dollar.
The situation climaxed in 1971 when France attempted to withdraw its gold and Nixon refused. On August 15th he made the following announcement:
This was obviously not a temporary suspension as he claimed, but rather a permanent default and to put it bluntly it was theft.
In 1973 President Nixon asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to accept only US dollars as payment for oil and to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. In return Nixon offered military protection for Saudi oil fields. The same offer was extended to each of the world's key oil producing countries, and by 1975 every member of OPEC had agreed to only sell oil in U.S. dollars.
The act of moving the dollar off of gold and tying it to foreign oil instantly forced every oil importing country in the world to start maintaining a constant supply of Federal Reserve paper, and to get that paper they would have to send real, physical goods to America.
This was the birth of the Petrodollar, Paper dollars went out, everything America needed came in and the United States got very, very rich as a result. It was largest financial con in recorded history.
Through 70s and the 80s the U.S. used the financial power gained by the petrodollar arrangement to build the most powerful military in the world,
and when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the United States was left with no rival.
Many hoped that at this point the U.S would start to reduce its military presence across the world, and that a new era of peace and stability would follow...
Unfortunately there were those in high places which had other ideas
Within that same year the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first Gulf war, and after crushing the Iraqi military and destroying their infrastructure, crippling sanctions were established which prevented that infrastructure from being rebuilt. These sanctions which were initiated by Bush senior and sustained throughout the entire Clinton administration lasted over a decade and were estimated to have killed over 500,000 children. The Clinton administration was fully aware of these figures.
Mrs. Albright what exactly was it that was worth killing 500,000 kids for?
In a final act of resistance Iraq began selling it's oil exclusively in Euros November of 2000.
This was a direct attack on the dollar and on U.S. financial dominance, and it wasn't going to be tolerated.
In response the U.S. government, with the assistance of the main stream media began to build up a massive propaganda campaign claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them. In 2003 the U.S. invaded, and once they had control of the country oil sales were immediately switched back to dollars.
This is particularly notable due to the fact that switching back to the dollar meant a 15 - 20% loss in revenue due to the euro's higher value. It doesn't make sense at all unless you take the petrodollar into account.
General General Wesley Clark: March 2, 2007
This interview was filmed in 2007 and yet almost all of what General Clark described has come to pass.
In Libya Gahaffi was in the process of organizing a block of African countries to create a gold based currency called the Dynar which they intended to use to replace the dollar in that region. U.S. and NATO forces helped destabilize and topple the Libyan government in 2011 and after taking control of the region U.S. armed Rebels executed Gaddafi in cold blood and immediately set up the Libyan central bank.
Iran has been actively campaigning to pull oil sales off of the dollar for some time now and has recently secured agreements to begin trading its oil in exchange for gold; In response the U.S. government with mainstream media assistance has been attempting to build international support for military strikes on the pretext of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. In the meantime they established sanctions which U.S. officials openly admit are aimed at causing a collapse of the Iranian economy.
Syria is Iran's closest ally, and they are bound by mutual defense agreements. The country is currently in the process of being destabilized with covert assistance from NATO, and though Russia and China have warned the United States not to get involved, the white house has made statements within the past month indicating that they are considering military intervention.
It should be clear that military intervention in Syria and Iran isn't being considered, it's a foregone conclusion, just as it was in Iraq and Libya. The U.S. is actively working to create the context which gives them the diplomatic cover do what they already have planned.
The motive for these invasions becomes clear when we look at them in their full context and connect the dots.
Those who control United States understand that if even a few countries begin to sell their oil in another currency it will set off a chain reaction, and the dollar will collapse.
They understand that there is absolutely nothing else holding up the value of the dollar at this point, and so does the rest of the world.
Rather than accepting the fact that the dollar is nearing the end of its lifespan, the powers that be have made a calculated gambit.
They have decided to use the U.S. military crush each and every resistant state in the middle east and Africa.
That in itself would be bad enough, but what you need to understand is that this is not going to end with Syria, Iran and Yemen.
China and Russia have stated publicly and in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate an attack on Iran or Syria.
Iran is one of their key allies, and they understand that if Iran falls
then they will have no way to escape the dollar without going to war.
And yet the U.S. is pushing forward in spite of the warnings.
What we are witnessing here is a trajectory that leads straight to the unthinkable.
It is a trajectory that was mapped out years ago in full awareness of the human consequences.
But who was it that set us on this course? What kind of psychopath is willing to intentionally set off a global conflict that will lead to millions of deaths just to protect the value of a paper currency?
It obviously isn't the president. The decision to invade Libya, Syria and Iran was made long before Obama had risen to the national spotlight, and yet he is carrying out his duty just like the puppets that preceded him.
So who is pulling the strings?
Often the best answer to questions like this are found by asking another question: Qui Bono? Who benefits?
Obviously those who have the power to print the dollar out of thin air have the most to loose if the dollar were to fall and since 1913 that power has been held by the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is a private entity is owned by a conglomerate of the most powerful banks in the world, and the men who control those banks are the ones who pull the strings.
To them this a game. Your life and the lives of those you love are just pawns on their chessboard.
At like a spoiled 4 year old who tips the board onto the floor when they start to lose the powers that be are willing to start world war three to keep control of the global financial system.
Remember that as these wars extend and accelerate. Remember that when your son or your neighbors son comes back home in a flag draped coffin. Remember that when they point the finger at the new boogie man. Because the madmen who are running this show will take this as far as you allow
What are our chances? Can we change course?... also the wrong question.
The odds don't matter anymore. If you understand what we are facing then you have a moral responsibility to do everything in our power alter the course we are on regardless of the odds. It's only when you stop basing your involvement on the chances of success that success actually becomes possible.
To strip the ill begotten power from the financial elites and to bring these criminal cartels to justice will require nothing less than a revolution. The government is not going to save us. The government is completely infiltrated and corrupt to the core. Looking to them for a solution at this point is utterly naive.
There are 3 stages of revolution, and they are sequential. Stage one is already underway.
Stage one is the ideological resistance. In this stage we have to actively work to wake up as many people as possible about what is happening and the direction we are headed. All revolutions originate from a shift in the mindset of the population, and no other meaningful resistance is possible without it. Success in this stage of a revolution can be measured by the contagion of ideas. When an idea reaches critical mass it begins to spread on its own and seeps into all levels of society. In order to achieve that contagion we need more people in this fight. We need more people speaking out, making videos, writing articles, getting this information onto the national and international stage, and we especially need to reach the police and military.
Stage two is civil disobedience, also known as non-violent resistance. In this stage you put your money where your mouth is, or more accurately you withhold your money and your obedience from government, and do everything in your power to bring the gears of the state to a halt. Practiced in mass this method alone is often enough to bring a regime to its knees. However if you fail at this stage, stage 3 is inevitable.
Stage 3 is direct physical resistance. Direct physical resistance is the last resort and it should be avoided and delayed as long as possible, and should only be invoked once all other options have been thoroughly exhausted
There are those talk tough and claim that they will resist when the time comes, but what those people fail to realize is that if you are inactive during the first two stages and save your efforts for violent resistance then you will fail. When the Nazis were moving door to door dragging people out of their homes in Germany that was the time to fight back physically, but due to the lack of ideological resistance and civil disobedience leading up to that moment even an armed uprising would have likely failed at that point. An armed uprising can only succeed if the people have established an attitude of active resistance, and active resistance is only possible after their minds have broken free from main stream propaganda.
If you want to fight back it's now or never. You're not gonna get another chance, and the stakes are much higher than they were in Nazi Germany.

Click on above link

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Are you worth your weight in gold? Check it out here...

Islamic Pedophilia in the war zone gets the OK from Obama

Obama administration gives pedophilia protected status
Is there no end to the deviancy the administration will coddle?
First, it was "gays" ... then lesbians ... then bisexuals ... then transgenders ...
Time to add another letter -- P for pedophilia -- to the alphabet soup of groups that dare not be criticized.
And this particular group of pedophiles wants to kill us ...

Army acknowledges pedophilia part of Islam
Manual warns soldiers in Afghanistan not to talk about certain subjects
byJack Minor

A new Army manual that warns American soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid talking about certain topics has unwittingly acknowledged that Western taboos such as pedophilia are an inherent part of Islamic culture.
“By mentioning that pedophilia and women’s rights and saying that soldiers should not mention such things they are tacitly admitting that those things are indeed part of Islam,” said Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a new 75-page Army manual suggests U.S. soldiers are to blame for the large number of deadly attacks on them by Afghan security forces. The manual reportedly says the soldiers may have brought the attacks on themselves because of insensitivity towards Islamic culture.
“Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member,” the draft report prepared by Army researchers and obtained by the Journal said.
Clare Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy, said the suggestion that U.S. soldiers are to blame for the attacks on them by Afghan security forces is outrageous.
“To suggest that our troops are somehow being murdered because of our insensitivity to their culture is essentially saying it’s our own fault that the troops are being killed because we weren’t nice enough to them,” Lopez said. “The fundamental refusal to acknowledge that the enemy fights because of what he says he fight for, which is Islam, is a failure by our professional leadership from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on down. Because of this, we have no strategy.”
This year alone, more than three dozen attacks have killed 63 coalition forces. In an attempt to quell the attacks the Army report has issued a list of “taboo conversational topics.”
The topics include “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights” and “directing any criticism towards Afghans” or “anything related to Islam.”
WND contacted the Army to request a copy of the manual. Army spokesman Ray Harp responded by saying it would not release a copy, for security reasons. He explained the Army wished to avoid detailing specific tactics, techniques and procedures outlined in the handbook.
Regarding the WSJ copy, Harp said whoever released it was not authorized to do so.
“While the handbook does contain information we do not want freely distributed into the hands of our enemies, it is labeled with the ‘For Official Use Only’ restriction,” Harp said. “While still officially unclassified, we require the information to be protected from an open distribution and it should not have been released to anyone outside of those who needed access to it for official purposes.”
Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, says while she has not seen the draft copy, she can understand how it is beneficial for the Army to help teach soldiers about cultural differences. Unfortunately, she said, Congress and military leaders often go too far.
“There is a cultural problem that the military needs to confront, but I’m not sure this manual is the best way to go about it,” Donnelly said. “If the information in it is for our soldier’s protection so as to prevent something from being provocative, it might save a life, but if as the article suggests it is calling for soldiers to be overly deferential, that’s not called for.”
Donnelly noted the example of Navy Lt. Florence Choe, who was shot by an Afghan guard in 2009 for wearing shorts while jogging along the perimeter of the base.
“I’m not saying this was her fault, but if her commanders had taken the time to acknowledge that individuals in that part of the world have a different attitude in regards to women in shorts, it might have saved her life,” she said.
However, Donnelly says there are other taboos supposedly in the report that appear to have gone too far.
The Army manual also advises soldiers to avoid “any criticism of pedophilia” or “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct.”
“In that part of the world homosexuality is condemned, and pedophilia is accepted. It’s not like our culture at all and that needs to be acknowledged. We don’t have to be subservient to be cautious,” she continued. “Unfortunately, often times our leaders want to go overboard, believing it will help our relationships with these countries, but the truth is it doesn’t.”
The Army manual has drawn sharp criticism from Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan. Allen reportedly has rejected a proposed foreword written by the Army using his name.
“Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword,” Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan said. “He does not approve of its contents.”
Spencer says the ban on criticizing pedophilia has put the military in a difficult position. By attempting to show cultural sensitivity, it is forced to acknowledge that pedophilia is an inherent part of Islamic teaching.
“This draws attention to the fact that despite denials by the U.S. government and groups like CAIR, these things are a part of official Islam,” Spencer said. “However, I don’t expect them to have the honesty to acknowledge the inconsistency.”
He said that by telling soldiers not to speak against pedophilia, the military and the U.S. government is essentially endorsing the behavior.
“We are essentially sending the message that the United States endorses pedophilia by refusing to speak out against it. I don’t see any way around this.”
Clare Lopez, also a senior fellow with the Clarion Fund, said the new manual is another example of how the military is sending the message that Western culture and values are subservient to Islam.
“It’s another step in a process of submission to the appeasement of Islam that the United States leadership including military leadership has been pursuing for quite a while,” she said. “The entire program seems to be geared to appeasing the Taliban and jihadists by giving in to their world view which says Islam should not be offended and letting them decide what is offensive.”
She said the problem is not limited to the Obama administration but began in Afghanistan under President George W. Bush.
“This actually began in 2004 when we helped Afghanistan enshrine Islamic Shariah law in the constitution. Once we did that, we no longer had any purpose being in the country because we gave the enemy everything they asked for,” she noted. “That’s what they fight for, the imposition of Shariah. All of these other measures that followed from that point on have been a further attempt to win their hearts and minds. It hasn’t worked as is evident by the fact they are still killing our soldiers.”
The Army manual is in keeping with policies by the Obama administration to deliberately scrub all training materials that criticize Islam. Earlier this year, the FBI destroyed all of its materials that taught there was an Islamic connection to terrorism.
WND previously reported the Pentagon refused to give assurances that soldiers who burned the Quran would not be turned over to Afghan authorities to face trial.
Cmdr. William Speakes, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said: “It would be premature to speculate at any potential outcomes. Any disciplinary action if deemed warranted will be taken by U.S. authorities after a thorough review of the facts pursuant to all U.S. military law and regulations and in accordance with due process. We have made no commitments beyond that.”
When asked if that meant the only commitment officials were willing to make was that the soldiers would not be tried in an Afghan court, Speakes said: “No. The only commitment we have made is that we will take any appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary by the investigation. Any suggestions that we have made more detailed commitments beyond what I just told you is inaccurate.”
Spencer said the Army manual sends the message to Middle Easterners that despite statements by our government, they cannot expect any help from America when it comes to fighting for basic human rights.
“Anybody in these Muslim countries that wanted to see freedom of speech, a crackdown on pedophilia, or rights for women were disappointed at the time that we endorsed the Afghan constitution which enshrined these principles in Islamic law,” Spencer said. “It sends the message to advocates of human rights and freedom that the United States is not going to help them and they are on their own.”

Related story...does not mention pedohilia

Afghan soldier opens fire on US troops
Five wounded in latest 'green on blue' attack just days after police officer shot and killed three British soldiers

An Afghan soldier has shot and wounded five US troops in eastern Afghanistan, just days after an Afghan policeman killed three British soldiers in the south.
A US soldier on patrol in Afghanistan's Wardak province in 2009.
 Five American troops have been wounded in a so-called 'green-on-
blue' attack in the area. Photograph: Shamil Zhumatov/Reuters
It is the latest in a string of attacks by Afghans on the foreign forces who are training them. The regular shootings are undermining morale in the critical mission to bolster the Afghan police and army as foreign troops head home.
"We have confirmed that the individual who opened fire was an ANA [Afghan National Army] member," said Martin Crighton, spokesman for the Nato-led coalition in Afghanistan.
The attacker escaped after opening fire early on Tuesday evening at a base in Sayed Abad district of eastern Wardak province, according to Shahidullah Shahid, a spokesman for the provincial governor. He had no further details on the man's age, name or background. Afghan and Nato officials are investigating the incident.
Twenty-six Nato soldiers have been killed in 19 such incidents this year, known as "green on blue" attacks by the military. Last year, 35 soldiers were killed in 21 attacks, Nato figures show.
The shootings have become such a commonplace threat that some foreign units are watched by armed "guardian angels" from their own ranks – virtually unheard of five years ago.
In 2007 and 2008 there were a combined total of four attacks and four deaths, according to Associated Press.
UK forces have been particularly badly hit this year; the latest attack on Sunday in Helmand province meant nearly a quarter of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2012 have died at the hands of the Afghan police and army.
Even elite units have not proved immune to the problem. An Afghan commando shot dead a US special forces soldier earlier this year, and Sunday's killer was from the Afghan National Civil Order Police, generally considered better trained, better disciplined and more prestigious than ordinary police.
Most attackers are killed, or flee their bases, like the soldier in Wardak, to blend into the local population or perhaps join the insurgents.
Sunday's attacker was wounded, but survived and was captured by British troops, giving them and the Afghan government a rare chance to question a perpetrator of the attacks.
Afghan forces also suffer from regular attacks from inside their own ranks, dubbed "green on green", although the government says it does not keep figures on such incidents.
The Taliban regularly claims responsibility for almost all such attacks, although some appear to be the work of sympathisers rather than infiltrators, or come about as a result of quarrels.
The Nato-led coalition argues that not all attacks are the work of the Taliban, and that "green on blue" killings are in part the result of personal disputes in an environment where most men are heavily armed.