Troops in Africa: Is this why we have a military?

In March, the United States plans to send elements of the Second Brigade, First Infantry Division, to Africa (under AFRICOM) to conduct over a hundred different missions in 34 nations, such as humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and training indigenous forces.  (source: Washington Times) The Second Brigade is a heavy brigade equipped with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery, mind you, not a light infantry brigade or Special Forces unit.  As a result of the deployment, their training on these systems in a wartime scenario will most likely suffer.

We are also a bankrupt nation, yet spending millions deploying portions of our military to areas that are not critical to our national security.  Sounds to me like we may have found a portion of the national budget we can cut if our military has nothing better to do than hand out humanitarian assistance and wait for natural disasters in some far off land.

Our tax dollars need to instead be spent on our military defense, not on ambiguous blanket missions of doing everything except the defense of our nation.  We need to get ourselves out of this recession/depression first before we should even consider doing a mission like that of the 2nd Brigade in Africa.  The national debt is the biggest threat to our national security, not some non-existent disaster in Africa.

We must ask ourselves: Are the Armed Forces of the United States serving as the military force of the United Nations/World Government, or are they protecting America and its citizens?

As an organization, the US military is slowly being forced to reject its original foundation of the Christian faith and in its place accept humanism, as evidenced by the removal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy allowing for open homosexual behavior in the ranks.  Even the mere presence of religion in military organizations is under attack from organizations such as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation who espouse a perverted interpretation of the First Amendment.

A key component of humanism is relativism, where there is no absolute truth.  This has in part led to the development of a manual in Afghanistan that blames our own troops' insensitivity to the Islamic culture for causing the green on blue violence in that nation, rather than blaming the true source--Islamic jihad.

Furthermore, our military is confused as to who the enemy is.  They are attacked by a jihadi at Fort Hood and it is called "workplace violence."  Russian military forces are invited in our borders to participate in "counter-terrorism" exercises.  We are aiding and abetting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, an organization that intends to re-establish a hostile Caliphate and destroy America.  One of our Ambassadors is slain in North Africa while the military is forbidden from coming to his aid.  We kill al Qaeda operatives in Yemen (for Saudi Arabia?), while supporting them and their allies in Syria and Libya.

Military leadership has been involved in suppressing the First Amendment rights of United States citizens when it comes to speech against Islam, and have publicly humiliated a fellow officer for teaching the threat that Islam presents.  Then they "pivot to the Pacific," however China is not considered a threat but Iran in the Middle East remains so.  Then some in our government talk about unilaterally reducing our nuclear arsenal to below 300 weapons while Russia is modernizing and exercising their nuclear triad.

Who is the enemy???

We need to get our military back on track and fast.  They are all over the world "chasing Indians," disasters, and handing out humanitarian assistance.  They need to be focused on the one thing they need to get right--defending our nation against existential threats.  They need to be preparing for war, and they need a clear vision as to who are the enemies of America.  With the imminent reduction in the military budget, this becomes all the more critical.

--Against All Enemies

Army plans to shift troops to U.S. Africa Command

Aims for quick crisis response

By Kristina Wong - The Washington Times, Sunday, December 23, 2012

U.S. Africa Command, the military’s newest regional force, will have more troops available early next year as the Pentagon winds down from two ground wars over the past decade, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Army chief of staff, told The Washington Times.

As part of Gen. Odierno’s Regionally Aligned Forces concept, about 1,200 soldiers will deploy to Africa as early as March in an effort to place troops strategically around the globe to respond quickly to sudden challenges in hot spots such as Libya and to develop ties with the people and officials in host countries.

“It’s about us moving towards a scalable, tailorable capability that helps them to shape the environment they’re working in, doing a variety of tasks from building partner capability to engagement, to multilateral training to bilateral training to actual deployment of forces, if necessary,” Gen. Odierno said in an interview.

Amid budget cuts and with President Obama’s new military strategy downplaying the chances of another major land war, the Army has sought to maintain its relevance among admirals and generals in the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa — likely places for the next flash point. When terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, no U.S. troops were close enough to help.

[...]

Ready, responsive

Beginning in March, small teams of soldiers from the 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, based in Fort Riley, Kan., will conduct at least 108 missions in at least 34 countries in Africa through mid-2014.

The missions could include humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, training host-nation forces in marksmanship, first aid and other skills, and conducting military exercises. To prepare for these missions, soldiers are studying the regions and cultures of countries where they will deploy, and learning Arabic, Swahili, French and Portuguese.

Continue Reading (article continues)... 

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

The Great Divide

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

--The Declaration of Independence

Today in America we are faced with a choice about who is sovereign--God or Man?  Most other nations in the world have already made this choice and decided that Man is sovereign.  Our Founding Fathers strove to leave such nations.  When our nation was formed, they chose God.  Now we are faced with this choice once again, and we must have the courage to pick one or the other.

We are witnessing these two competing beliefs throughout our society, and it impacts where we as a nation believe Truth resides.  If Truth resides with a sovereign God, then Truth is an unchanging foundation upon which we can base our laws and society.  If it is with a sovereign Man, then Truth is an ever-shifting foundation that moves based on the desires of the human being (or beings) in power.

Frankly, it appears that we are moving full speed toward a rejection of God's sovereignty and an acceptance of Man's.  Moving toward a sovereign Man exhibits many tendencies:

1. The rejection of humans as created in God's image and the acceptance of humans as mere animals, just a little bit more "evolved" than the rest (this myth is perpetuated to create a competing explanation for the existence of humans that undermines God's Truth and replaces it with Man's)
2. Because we are animals, our behaviors result from our "nature" and "environment," removing personal responsibility for our actions
3. Because we are animals, we should not be restricted by "morality," but should instead give in to our "natural" desires and do as we wish
4. Because of the reduction in morality, there is an increase in the need for the Sovereign to control the populace, for they now cause more problems
5. As the populace becomes increasingly irresponsible, liberties will be taken away since the people can no longer responsibly govern themselves
6. Because we are animals, our population needs to be controlled to protect the health of our species and prevent overpopulation (eugenics and abortion)
7. To govern such a population of irresponsible human "animals," a centralized, collective government must be instituted, ruled by the "elite" and "enlightened."  The sovereign will have to instruct the populace on how to live their lives in order to protect them from themselves and to protect those around them.  In essence, the sovereign will determine the rights of the people.  The ultimate end of this sort of thinking is global control of the human population.
8. Finally, because Truth resides in the human sovereign, then anyone who either goes against the sovereign or does not believe that Truth resides with him is an enemy of the State and will be persecuted in order to maintain the authority of the human sovereign.  (tyranny)

The bottom line is that these two opposite beliefs, Man holding ultimate Truth and God holding ultimate Truth, are incompatible and cannot reasonably coexist in a nation.  As we witness Man's Truth in the ascendant in America, we must realize that a choice will have to be made.  That choice is whether this nation believes that Truth resides with God, or Truth resides with Man.  

As we continue forward, watching both beliefs vying for control of our nation, there are some potential courses of action for the resolution of this conflict.

1. Status Quo.  We continue on the current path, watching God's Truth be steadily pushed out of the fabric of our nation.  Basically, accept "fate," do nothing, and allow Man's Truth to take over the nation.
2. National Choice.  Convene something akin to a Constitutional Convention and lay out the issue before the American people to make a choice of our national sovereign.
3. State Choices.  Allow each State to choose its sovereign, effectively dissolving the Union, but allowing certain segments of society to go the way they wish.  This will most likely see massive migrations of populations.
4. Civil War.  This is similar to scenario #1, but instead of accepting "fate," the issue comes to a head and each side takes up arms against the other.  This could result in the dissolution of the Union, one side or the other being victorious and maintaining the Union, or foreign occupation.
5. Election.  Elect a President and Congress who execute a "reset" on the government and restore it to its Constitutional foundations.

These scenarios certainly do not address all potentialities.  However, the point is that our nation must decide on this issue, the effects of which will rest on the course of action taken.  

Our nation was founded upon the fact that Truth lies with our Sovereign, the Lord, Creator of Heaven and Earth.  Entities within our nation are trying to undermine and change that.  When all is said and done, we cannot allow them to do so below the table.  It must be a conscious decision, done with the consent of the People.  

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

--The Declaration of Independence

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

A Progressive God Responds to the War on Christmas

Yesterday I was forwarded a rather long e-mail letter from God, so I thought you just might be interested. If you are reading this, then you will most likely receive it too. I was really disappointed, however, that I wasn’t on God’s initial list of friends, but I guess I should be thankful that the e-mail finally made it into my inbox.

The letter starts out . . .

“Dear Children,

It has come to my attention that many of you are upset that folks are taking My name out of the season. Maybe you've forgotten that I wasn't actually born during this time of the year and that it was some of you're predecessors who decided to celebrate My birthday on what was actually a time of pagan festival. Although Ido appreciate being remembered anytime.

How I personally feel about this celebration can probably be most easily understood by those of you who have been blessed with children of your own. I don't care what you call the day. If you want to celebrate My birth just, GET ALONG AND LOVEONE ANOTHER. . . .”

The letter goes on to suggest that we all stop worrying about the War on Christmas, and start acting like real Christians by performing acts of Christian love and charity etc. Now who can argue with that? And more to the point, who would dare argue with God???

Well, for starters, how can I be sure that God actually wrote this e-mail? I did notice that there were a few grammatical errors, but perhaps God doesn’t really care much about grammar either or perhaps His secretary was off for the day?

The next question I had was that if God really did write this e-mail, which person of the Trinity was actually involved in the writing? The implication is that it must be Jesus because God is talking about “MY birthday.” We Christians all know that God the Father “Is, Was, and Always Will Be.” God the Father never had a birth date. If Jesus is writing about “My name” and “My birthday”, why didn’t He even once mention His name??? He could have at least signed the letter but HE didn’t.

Perhaps God was avoiding any mention of Jesus in order to keep Christians and Non-Christians alike from Christmas-time divisiveness? But that doesn’t ring true. It’s really hard to imagine a God “who sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him” (John 4:19), not even wanting to mention that fact on his only son’s birthday.

But this letter is hard to figure out, kind of like trying to figure out God. So I’m just not sure. Isn’t it funny that God would remind folks to read John 15: 1 – 8 ("I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. . .), tell folks to pray, and to send money to missionaries who would spread his name, but fail to spread His name in this very letter???

And why wouldn’t God want folks to heed Jesus’ own words?

“And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.” (John 14:13)

God made several good suggestions in his e-mail but I was struck by the fact that God had little interest in keeping alive the Christian tradition of Christmas. I would assume from reading this e-mail from God that He’s not at all opposed to secularizing the day.

“Stop worrying about the fact that people are calling the tree a holiday tree, instead of a Christmas tree. It was I who made all trees.”

That got me to thinking about the importance of tradition – to humans at least. Why should protecting our cherished religious traditions be important to all Americans regardless of our differing faith perspectives?

Oddly enough I found the answer from an Australian – Professor Mark Cooray. Dr. Cooray was once a socialist/progressive activist but he turned from socialism because, “I have come to believe that socialism and progressivism are in practice, as far as human development is concerned, retrogressive philosophies.”

Here’s a quote from a very interesting chapter on Tradition from the book, The Australian Achievement: From Bondage To Freedom by Dr. Mark Cooray.

"The Internationale contains a line "No more tradition's chains shall bind us." This is one of the fundamental ideas of socialist/progressivist thinking. Man must be freed from tradition. Reason is to be the guiding light. The devil can cite scripture for his purposes. Reason can often be used to support any position. If men and women are freed from tradition, the experiences of history and the family environment, they can be manipulated and used by ideological and religious leaders, eccentrics and maniacs. If tradition declines, ideologues can mould and influence individuals."
Source: http://ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap11.htm

Note: The Internationale is the international song of both Marxist and non-Marxist socialist parties. It was written in French by Eugene Pottier, a woodworker from Lille, after the fall of the Paris Commune of 1871, and set to music by P. Degeyter.
Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/INTERNAT.html

Now it’s just possible, even plausible, that perhaps God didn’t really write this e-mail letter. And if the devil can cite scripture for his purposes, then who is to say who really wrote the letter? That got me to thinking about “inversion” – the turning of faith or any philosophy inside out.

Now anyone can be susceptible to ideologues who would manipulate faith, and those who are only too willing to overthrow tradition for political correctness are often the most susceptible. The clever part about the inversion of faith is that it is often very subtle. The primary rule of inversion is that the big lie is usually hidden amid much truth. And that big lie is often hidden through the process of expanding definitions and redefining commonly accepted theological truths. We usually call it "revisionism".

I don’t know who wrote the letter and most likely it was written by someone who has the best of Christian humanistic intentions. I do know that the letter was forwarded to me from one of my liberal/ progressive friends who is a member of a very liberal/progressive Christian denomination. I won’t mention the particular denomination’s name but you can usually tell which Christian denominations have a liberal/progressive bias. They are the denominations with well known old names that are rapidly losing membership due in no small part to the fact that they subtly promote moral equivalency with any faith perspective, and they avoid, at all costs, the mention of sin. The easiest way to spot them is that they quote every Biblical verse devoted to Love but recoil from any passage having to do with the cost of sin. And if you read any of their literature you will find that they have quite neutered the language by never referring to God as "He". The most extreme of the progressives refer to God as "He/She".

My friend sent the e-mail on to all of her many church friends and to me because she was afraid that we Americans are “politicizing our God.” But somehow this letter from God feels just like a politicized message especially when God tells us to pray for George.

I do not doubt the sincerity and devout faith of my friend and of most liberal/progressive Christians. But what I do know is that, as Dr. Cooray aptly pointed out concerning the progressives, “they can be manipulated and used by ideological and religious leaders, eccentrics and maniacs.”

If anyone would like me to send them the entire e-mail from “God”, please e-mail me.