Real Oath Keepers

The American Dream – Homelessness and Hunger

This is what our troops have to look forward to as a reward for smashing the sovereignty of a number of Middle Eastern nations, to better serve the usurpers who have a strangle hold on America, and most of the planet. Hunger and homelessness are the new picture of America, as we head into the second engineered economic collapse, and all this by the same people as usual. Funny thing is, these traitorous infiltrators have done this to a number of other countries, and have been ejected on the order of one hundred and nine different times, from eighty four different countries for this very thing. If you knew the real story about history, and not the one printed by these criminals in your school books, you would easily be able to see the pattern. Just in the last year alone, the cry for assistance with the most basic of all needs (feeding one’s self) has jumped over 26%, yet these infiltrators would have you believe we are already recovering. As more and more people lose their jobs (half a million people per week) this problem will only continue to spiral out of control. If you really want to do something to help defend your homeland, you need to get the foxes out of the hen house, but who are the foxes? As soon as you read our Basic Training manual, all of those questions will simply fade away, and as soon as you come home and deal with the real terrorists in every facet of our lives, these problems will instantly start to subside. Of course, 25% of America’s homeless population are Veterans who gave their blood, sweat, and tears while these crooks worked to put their families on the street. How do you think you should respond?

Source: Yahoo
Date: 08DEC09

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Hunger is spreading while the number of homeless families is increasing as a result of the recession and other factors, according to a report on Tuesday.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors said cities reported a 26 percent jump in demand for hunger assistance over the past year, the largest average increase since 1991.

Middle-class families as well as the uninsured, elderly, working poor and homeless increasingly looked for help with hunger, which was mainly fueled by unemployment, high housing costs and low wages.

The 2009 report is based on a survey of 27 cities, including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia and San Francisco, that comprise the group’s task force on hunger and homelessness.

Looking ahead to 2010, cities said they expect it will be difficult to meet increased demands for food due to the impact of state and local budget cuts, a decrease in grocery store donations and higher food costs.

Just over three-fourths of the cities reported a jump in homeless families due to the recession and lack of affordable housing. Individual homelessness, on the other hand, was level or down in 16 of the cities.

“This is an indication of the success of policies aimed at ending chronic homelessness among single adults with disabilities,” the report said.

Only 10 cities reported having so-called tent cities or other concentrations of the homeless.

Most of the cities in the survey received additional funding to combat hunger and homelessness from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“Cities are using (housing funds) to develop central intake systems for homeless services, coordinate services more closely with surrounding areas, or offer homeless prevention assistance for the first time,” the report said.

Value Menu Falters as Homeland Falls Apart

You know America is in trouble when McDonalds can’t even sustain it’s value menu. While our troops fight and die in the Middle East for nothing more than to serve America’s own usurpers, they are busy wrecking the homeland. Many troops will never see home again, as they will return in body bags, but those who do, won’t recognize it by the time the wars are over. With Americans losing their jobs, homes, savings, retirement plans, and everything else you can think of to the same group of crooks responsible for the wars, it’s likely there won’t be much to return to when the troops do come home. Of course, if you actually took the time to identify the real threats facing our people, you wouldn’t have troops in Afghanistan. Instead, they would be cleaning house in Washington, New York, Las Vegas, and a few other places where the crooks and terrorists are really hiding. You can’t defend the homeland from thousands of miles away, regardless of what anybody tells you. McDonalds food isn’t food, it’s garbage, but Americans eat it up like it’s going out of style, so if a company like this is struggling to sell burgers for a dollar, how do you think everyone else will fair? Maybe if we’re lucky our new communist president will buy a portion of McDonalds on our dime, just like they did with GM. If you want to solve the problem, get with our Basic Training program TODAY, and finally understand where it all stems from. If you fail to do so, don’t let us hear you complain.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 08DEC09

CHICAGO (AP) — The supersized recession that was a boon for business last year caught up further with McDonald’s Corp. in November, as high unemployment ate into sales.

While the world’s largest burger chain is still faring better than its competitors, who’ve increasingly been pushing value menus and discounts of their own, the restaurant’s fortunes likely won’t improve unless the U.S. economy does.

“I think ultimately, we’ll need job growth to get things turned around to get back in the positive territory,” said Morningstar restaurant analyst R.J. Hottovy.

On Tuesday, McDonald’s said sales at restaurants open at least a year fell 0.6 percent in the U.S. It was the second consecutive monthly decline for the measure, an important indicator of a restaurant chain’s health, and a steeper fall than October’s 0.1 percent.

November’s overseas results were better but still mixed, helped by a softening dollar that translated foreign revenue into more dollars. Around the globe, sales in locations open at least a year rose 0.7 percent.

Because of its size and its ability to trounce competitors with its increasingly popular dollar menu, McDonald’s was one of the early beneficiaries of the recession as diners traded down from pricier restaurants. In fact, last November, sales in locations open a year climbed 4.5 percent in the U.S. and 7.7 globally.

But earlier this fall, McDonald’s cautioned it wasn’t immune to the recession, either, and in October, the U.S. figure fell 0.1 percent.

Tuesday’s results were only the fourth U.S. decrease in 6 1/2 years.

The results come as McDonald’s also faces increased competition from rivals trumpeting their own deeply discounted menus. Among them: Taco Bell’s value menu that begins with items for 79 cents, and Wendy’s $2.99 combos. Burger King has also heavily pushed a $1 double cheeseburger that it touts as being a bigger and better value than McDonald’s $1 McDouble.

“It appears that after nearly six years of consistent gains, further increases in U.S. comps will be more labored,” Standard & Poor’s restaurant analyst Mark Basham said in a research note.

That’s because until the U.S. unemployment rate — which was 10 percent in November — recovers significantly, McDonald’s customers are less likely to visit the chain — picking up coffee and a McMuffin for breakfast, or dashing in for a Big Mac for lunch with co-workers.

In Europe, sales in locations open at least a year rose 2.5 percent, thanks to stronger business in the U.K. and France. But the figures were still short of forecasts and were the second-worst figures from the continent this year, said Janney Capital Markets analyst Mark Kalinowski.

“McDonald’s did not provide much in the way of explanation for the lower-than-anticipated European (figure), suggesting to us that the region may remain under a cloud of uncertainty,” Kalinowski told investors in a research note.

Sales in locations open for at least a year in the Middle East, Africa and Asia/Pacific dropped 1 percent. Last year, the figure rose 13.2 percent in the region.

Meanwhile, systemwide sales — a figured based on results at company owned restaurants as well as those operated by franchise owners — climbed 10.1 percent. Adjusting for currency fluctuations, systemwide sales were up 2.3 percent.

The company, based in Oak Brook, Ill., runs more than 32,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries.

Its shares fell $1.32, or 2.1 percent, to close at $60.61 Tuesday.

Troops Want End to War

This is the type of dangerous, war mongering propaganda we can expect from a media and a usurped government controlled by the same group of subversives. The title of the story state “US troops hopeful Obama plan will wind down war”, yet almost the entire story is laid out in a fashion meant to bolster support for the war, more than anything else. These troops who say they are “truly happy”, are saying so because they hear a plan that means an end to the war. However, the real story is that increasing troop numbers means expanding the war, and nothing more. You don’t add more and get less, regardless of how you measure something.

The real deal is that Obama has no plans to end this war, at least until his mission of using American Soldiers as pawns to subdue the enemies of his masters. They’re not going to tell you that the terrorists are in the White House, Congress, Senate, media, and Hollywood manipulating us towards our own destruction. This is why you need our Basic Training, because many of you do NOT know thy enemy, and as such, are completely incapable of defending your people against them. This isn’t a game Soldier, so buck up and learn something before your time runs out.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 02DEC09

FORWARD OPERATING BASE AIRBORNE, Afghanistan – U.S. service members in Afghanistan said Wednesday that President Barack Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops offered hope that they can go home — if the reinforcements can build up the Afghan army to protect civilians against the Taliban.

The troops at this base in Wardak province, west of Kabul, learned of Obama’s decision while watching TV clips of his speech during their breakfast of sausage, eggs, hash browns, fruit and cereal. Obama said that if conditions permit, the troops could begin coming home in 18 months.

“Really, I’m truly happy,” said Air Force Tech. Sgt. Phillip M. Hauser, an explosives demolition expert from Salina, Kansas, who is on his fourth tour of Afghanistan and Iraq. “As soon as the Afghans can do it on their own without our help, we can go home.”

Hauser said the Afghans were inexperienced — but he didn’t question their determination.

“They charge in and start pulling the wires” on the explosives, Hauser said. “It’s not the safest way to do things, but these guys have the guts.”

Sgt. Maj. Andrew Spano of Northboro, Massachusetts, deployed with the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, wondered whether to bank on the beginnings of a U.S. pullout in 18 months.

“Obama talking to the American people and the world shows that we have much greater direction,” he said. “The train has been going down the track for some time, but this just gives us more guidelines.”

But Spano appeared skeptical whether Afghan forces would be ready in 18 months — a fear echoed by a number of Afghan officials who believed the timeline was too short. Asked about the 18-month timeframe, Spano asked: “What does it really mean?”

Capt. Mark Reel from Norfolk, Virginia, a civil affairs officer, said more troops mean nothing unless they can give local Afghans a sense of perceived security.

“They have to believe they are more secure. You get thousands of troops on some of these bases here, but what are they really doing? The troops just have to get out there.”

The reason the surge worked in Iraq, he said, is because troops were able to get into the field and make Iraqis feel safer.

“The additional forces will allow us to partner with even more units of the Afghan army and police and deliver even more relationships with those local influential leaders who may be sitting on the fence,” said Col. David Haight, commander of Task Force Spartan, which has about 4,000 troops in Wardak and Logar provinces.

In the United States, battle-weary troops and their families braced for a wrenching round of new deployments to Afghanistan, but many said they support the surge as long as it helps to end the 8-year-old conflict.

Marines and their families interviewed by The Associated Press in Jacksonville, North Carolina, near Camp Lejeune, felt a mix of fresh concerns and renewed hopes. The Marine Corps base could supply some of the first surge units by Christmas.

“All I ask that man to do, if he is going to send them over there, is not send them over in vain,” said 57-year-old Bill Thomas of Jacksonville, who watched Obama’s speech in his living room, where photos of his three sons in uniform hang over the TV.

One of his sons, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Thomas, is a Marine based at Camp Lejeune. He’ll deploy next year to Afghanistan.

An ex-Marine himself, Thomas said he supports Obama’s surge strategy. But he shook his head when the president announced a 2011 transition date to begin pulling out troops.

“If I were the enemy, I would hang back until 2011,” Thomas said. “We have to make sure that we are going go stay until the job is done. It ain’t going to be as easy as he thinks it is.”

The idea behind Obama’s troop buildup is to provide enough extra security for a period of time to give the Afghans a chance to build up their government and security forces. Asked how the U.S. and international forces will prevent another resurgence of militant violence once the foreign forces leave, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country, said that insurgents can’t afford to leave the battlefield while the ranks of trained Afghan forces swell.

“It makes it much more difficult for the returning insurgents to contest that,” McChrystal said.

Military officials say the Army brigades most likely to be sent as part of the surge will come from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Campbell in Kentucky. Marines, who will be the vanguard, will most likely come primarily from Camp Lejeune.

As the wife of a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, Jamie Copeland said she wished the war “would be over and done with.”

Copeland’s husband, Sgt. Doug Copeland, is already scheduled to return to Afghanistan later this fall. She hates to see him go — he just returned from his last seven-month tour in August — and miss more time with their 1-year-old son. But she also conceded that American forces need more help fighting Taliban insurgents.

“We need to be in Afghanistan,” said Copeland, 24. “Our Marines are getting slaughtered out there. I would say we need more out there. Iraq is done.”

At the John Hoover Inn, a bar in Evans Mills, N.Y., near Fort Drum, a dozen soldiers watched the speech on a large-screen TV, drinking beer out of red cups. When Obama announced the troop increase, only one cheered, and the rest remained silent. They continued to play darts while the president was speaking.

“I’m just relieved to know where we’re going,” said Spc. Adam Candee, 29, of Chicago.

Theresa McCleod said she worries what Obama’s plans might mean for her husband, a soldier in the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. She said he’s already done a long combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving her to care for their three children.

“First he was supposed to be pulling everyone out, and now all the sudden he’s throwing everybody back into Afghanistan and it’s like nobody can really make up their minds,” McCleod said of Obama.

Obama Lies to Troops at West Point

When people will believe their leaders without question, we are in serious trouble. It’s even worse when the lies put forth by these people cost the lives of our troops and innocent men and women across the globe. Obama fails to tell you that 911 was pulled off by people related to his Chief of Staff, who is the son of Irgun terrorists. He puts the blame on Al-qaida, although their so-called Muslim leaders are repeatedly found to be members of the same terrorist group now holed up in the White House, and they are far from being Muslims. Obama speaks of a “wrenching debate” over the war in Iraq, but fails to mention that the LIES which were used as a pretext for that war are known to the majority of the public to be a farce, and are well documented as such. No evidence linking the false front Al-qaida to 911 has been produced to this date, so his argument for war in Afghanistan is moot. Do you know who the terrorists are that Obama is covering for with these lies? ROK member surely do!

Obama also fails to tell you how troops are protecting the illegal opium and heroin trade that the Taliban stomped out of existence. There is no “responsible end” to the Iraq slaughter of 1 million innocent civilians. You simply can not justify mass murder, no matter what your excuse. Iraq is now fully under the boot of American and Israeli control, and will never be a sovereign nation again, thanks to the efforts of our troops there. Obama will not tell you the Taliban is gaining momentum because they were legitimate government that stopped the opium trade, which now flourishes under U.S. occupation. Obama talks of what he owes our troops, but he doesn’t mention it is HIS fault they are still dying in these wars. Obama drivels about bringing troops home, but never mentions we have no other reason to be there, than to help our usurpers dominate the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan have been toppled and puppet leadership is now in place. Your job as troops? Kill any remaining resistance to their domination. This is the story Obama is not telling you. Now get with our Basic Training and finally find out who the REAL terrorists are, so that you can see FOR YOURSELF what tripe Obama’s speech is.

Source: News Herald
Date: 01DEC09

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here — at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al-Qaida — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al-Qaida’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al-Qaida and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al-Qaida’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al-Qaida was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an international security assistance force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al-Qaida’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an underdeveloped economy and insufficient security forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al-Qaida, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al-Qaida and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al-Qaida worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al-Qaida has not re-emerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.

This review is now complete. And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaida can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al-Qaida, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al-Qaida’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al-Qaida and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al-Qaida a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our Allies and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the U.N., and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al-Qaida fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave, and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that reinforces positive action and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaida from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaida and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al-Qaida and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — and what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America — we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: That our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God bless you, God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

Obama Vows to Let Soldiers Die for Nothing

President Obama, a puppet, illegal president who is not a natural born citizen of these united states, has vowed to continue sending troops into third world countries to subdue their peoples and secure their resources. In Iraq, most of the bases sit on oil pipelines. In Afghanistan, the Taliban shut down the opium trade, so naturally, our troops are being used as pawns to secure it for the traitors at the helm. If Obama planned to only sends our best to die when it’s absolutely necessary, he is a bold faced liar. He has done nothing since his inauguration but expand this farce called the “war on terror”. The terror comes to citizens of the Middle East in the form of American troops invading sovereign lands, and most have no idea why. Real Oath Keepers members learn early on in their Basic Training exactly why, and who is behind it. Equipment isn’t what our troops need. Knowledge of the truth, and real leadership is what’s missing.

Source: My Fox NY
Date: 22MAY09

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is promising newly graduated Navy and Marine officers that he will only send young Americans into battle when “it is absolutely necessary” and when the mission is well-defined.

Speaking to this year’s graduating class at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., Friday, Obama talked of the “promise that I make to you.” He vowed to give troops whatever equipment and other support they need to get the job done, both now and in the future.

The president said the United States must overcome “the full spectrum of threats” in the world, ranging from the “conventional and the unconventional” and as diverse as 18th century piracy and 21st century cyberwarfare.

Napalitano Supports DHS "Extremist" Report

Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, America’s modern day version of the NKVD, stands by her department’s assessment that returning war Veterans are likely “terrorists” who may become involved in “white supremacy” and “right wing extremism”. The truth of the matter is that Napolitano is one in a long line of extremist, terrorist infiltrators in our government. She is a part of the tribal group of infiltrators that have subverted America, and there is a very specific reason she supports the wording of this report. Do not be fooled, as ROK members certainly are not, the report amounts to nothing more than “ideological profiling” and merely saying that it’s not, will not change the facts about how it reads. Of course, if you were a ROK and had read our Basic Training manual, you would know exactly who this group is, what their agenda is, and a lot about their history in other countries. You would fully understand why we call the DHS the new NKVD, because it’s the same game plan, by the same people every time, and Napolitano is definitely one of them.

Troops returning from the conflict battle weary often find themselves seeking answers and reasons to explain what they have experienced. Napolitano knows that should you come across a website like this and be exposed to what our members know, that you will instantly fit into these pre-defined categories. Why are they so worried about “violent radicalization” in the U.S.? The answer is simple. Groups like ROK have uncovered their ruse and are blowing the whistle non-stop. Knowing this group of subversives have been exiled 109 times from over 84 countries, they have good reason to fear a real uprising. Especially if that uprising should come in the form of angry, armed, and well trained Veterans, Law Enforcement, and Active Duty Military personnel. Relating Veterans to Timothy McVeigh is a slight you would be hard pressed to understand unless you knew that McVeigh was a patsy, and the real attack in Oklahoma came from Elohim City. ROK members know exactly what’s up, so join up and learn something already, Soldier.

Source: Washington Times
Date: 16APR09

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was “dumbfounded” that such a report would be issued.

“This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans – including war veterans,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night.

The letter was representative of a public furor over the nine-page document since its existence was reported in The Washington Times on Tuesday.

In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says “rightwing extremism” may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments. But she agreed to meet with the head of the American Legion, who had expressed anger over the report, when she returns to Washington next week from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.

“The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States,” Ms. Napolitano said in her statement.

“I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution,” Ms. Napolitano said.

Ms. Napolitano insisted that the department was not planning on engaging in any form of ideological profiling.

Times Slimes U.S. Veterans with Dubious Crime Stats

The NY Times slanders returning U.S. Soldiers, labeling them as psychological misfits, and painting a picture of Veterans as a danger to the very society they spilled their own blood to protect. Unfortunately, the Times relies on lies, distortions, half truths, and many other methods to make their case, but fails to even give the reader a fair look at the real truth. This is purposely crafted propaganda, which is followed up by the Department of Homeland Security labeling returning Veterans as possible “right wing extremists” and “white supremacists”. If this is not a clear indicator of foxes in the hen house, or better yet, out-right traitors, then you need to get with our Basic Training and see the real story first hand. More harsh labels are reserved for the very select few of you who find out who the real enemy is, and call it by it’s name! Those who join Real Oath Keepers, and undergo our Basic Training will certainly fall into this group.  Many of you are active duty or retired Military who have seen real combat, but do you have the guts to face up to evil so dark it’s hard to imagine? Get our training manual now and find out.

Source: Times Watch
Date: 14JAN08

“Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles” overlaid the template of the “troubled Vietnam Veteran” (who came home irrevocably damaged, a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder) onto soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Times also leaned on an outdated, exaggerated study to make an ideological point about the horrors of war, while relying on shaky statistics to link the historically unpopular Vietnam War with Iraq.

In the first in a series, “War Torn — Casualties on the Home Front,” the Times’ Deborah Sontag and Lizette Alvarez did some dubious research, without context or reference to the larger population, and unearthed a grand total of 121 cases in which veterans were charged with a killing after coming home from war, claiming that “In many cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment appeared to play a role.”

From the Sunday front-page story, accompanied by a photo collage of killer veterans:

“The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

“Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.”

“The Times used the same methods to research homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years before and after the present wartime period began with the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

“This showed an 89 percent increase during the present wartime period, to 349 cases from 184, about three-quarters of which involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The increase occurred even though there have been fewer troops stationed in the United States in the last six years and the American homicide rate has been, on average, lower.”

The Times reached back not only to Vietnam but to Ancient Greek mythology to make its case for the psychological horrors of post-war life:

“Decades of studies on the problems of Vietnam veterans have established links between combat trauma and higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, gun ownership, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse — and criminality. On a less scientific level, such links have long been known.

“‘The connection between war and crime is unfortunately very ancient,’ said Dr. Shay, the V.A. psychiatrist and author. ‘The first thing that Odysseus did after he left Troy was to launch a pirate raid on Ismarus. Ending up in trouble with the law has always been a final common pathway for some portion of psychologically injured veterans.’”

John Hinderaker at the Powerline blog put the numbers in context, something the Times didn’t bother doing.

“As of 2005, the homicide rate for Americans aged 18-24, the cohort into which most soldiers fall, was around 27 per 100,000. (The rate for men in that age range would be much higher, of course, since men commit around 88% of homicides. But since most soldiers are also men, I gave civilians the benefit of the doubt and considered gender a wash.)

“Next we need to know how many servicemen have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. A definitive number is no doubt available, but the only hard figure I’ve seen is that as of last October, more than 500,000 U.S. Army personnel had served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Other sources peg the total number of personnel from all branches of the military who have served in the two theaters much higher, e.g. 750,000, 650,000 as of February 2007, or 1,280,000. For the sake of argument, let’s say that 700,000 soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors have returned to the U.S. from service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

“Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000–quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.

“But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times’ 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times’ research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact.”

Move America Forward made a similar argument.

To make the Iraq-Vietnam comparison explicit, Sontag and Alvarez unearthed a study from 1988.

“The National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, considered the most thorough analysis of this population, found that 15 percent of the male veterans still suffered from full-blown post-traumatic stress disorder more than a decade after the war ended. Half of the veterans with active PTSD had been arrested or in jail at least once, and 34.2 percent more than once. Some 11.5 percent of them had been convicted of felonies, and veterans are more likely to have committed violent crimes than nonveterans, according to government studies. In the mid-1980s, with so many Vietnam veterans behind bars that Vietnam Veterans of America created chapters in prisons, veterans made up a fifth of the nation’s inmate population.

“As Iraq and Afghanistan veterans get enmeshed in the criminal justice system, former advocates for Vietnam veterans are disheartened by what they see as history repeating itself.”

But back in August 2006 the Times itself reported a debunking of the 1988 study that cut the negative findings in half (hat tip Bruce Kesler).

(In a February 2006 story, Alvarez accepted as fact the myth of minorities as “cannon fodder” on the front lines.)