——————

I wanted you to know that I was informed by a woman who is a tax accountant that some soldiers are having their returns rejected when they claim the Making Work Pay deduction (schedule M) if they have the 2009 tax year claimed as tax exempt status because of combat pay.

Although your pay is tax exempt, it is still earned income and still eligible for the deduction. This ArmyMom (language alert) said you have to call and talk to a live IRS person to correct the error because it is a glitch in the electronic filing system.

Make sure you follow up and push the issue. It is money that you are entitled to and you should not allow the government to keep it!

I read this opinion piece and started thinking about "How do you define a 'terrorist?'" Extremist I can understand. But when does an extremist morph into a terrorist? Is it, as claimed by the author, solely based on skin color/religion?

Being the opinionated person I am, I thought I'd share my own thoughts and leave you with some questions.

Arsalan Iftikhar starts off his essay with a statement that I take exception to:

Within the last month, our country has witnessed two senseless, high-profile acts of criminal violence that would have been labeled terrorism if brown-skinned Arab Muslim men with foreign-sounding names had committed them.

I actually take exception to this because what I have seen in the media, when a person of the same citizenship/color/religion attacks his or her OWN GOVERNMENT AND COUNTRY, they are usually labeled an "insurgent." Do a google search of that word and look at how many stories there are from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

My opinion is that a terrorist is defined by the fact that he or she wants to commit the highest level of chaos by targeting those that don't suspect violence is at their doorstep. Average, every day citizens. The Stop 'n Go gas station clerk. The Walmart worker. The broker working at Cantor Fitzgerald on the 102 floor of a building in NYC. A terrorist will target those so as to create an atmosphere in a greater area of fear and uncertainty. When 9/11 happened, every American wondered if his or her small community, job, office building, farm house could be the random target of death and destruction.

The two white examples that Iftikhar uses had specific grievances with our government (although one was totally off his f'ing rocker). They took on those targets that represented the things they found wrong with our country, government, etc. There would not have been a small resonance in America when Joseph Stack flew his plane into an IRS office building if there isn't the perception that somewhere, somehow, our government has lost its way and the IRS represents the leech by which the greater entity sucks our lifeblood. I don't agree with what he did and how he did it. Let me make that clear. But if the founders of this country didn't think that government can become abusive, they never would have used the phrase "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…" in the Declaration of Independence. The list of grievances is long in that piece of paper. Further down, the signers of the Declaration put their name to something that included this, "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

They had had enough and they weren't taking it anymore. And they formulated and executed an insurrection of epic proportions.

Let me repeat that….it was an INSURRECTION.

Terrorism would have been random colonists boating over to England to bomb banks or markets or whipping out a musket to shoot up a group of school children to make a point that the Colonies were not happy with the way things were.

Do you see my distinction?

So my questions to you….do you think Lee Malvo was a terrorist? He randomly shot people in and around Washington, DC with no method to his madness. Do you think Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist? He killed kids in a preschool at the McMurrah building but he had a grievance with the government. Do you think an American Muslim who shoots up the Pentagon would be given the same treatment in the press as whacked out John Bedell? If targeting government type targets preclude the terrorist label, does that mean military targets such as the USS Cole don't count as terrorism? (I actually have thoughts on that too, but I have to take my kids to school now so I'll leave it to you to debate in comments and I'll throw my opinion in there if anyone wants to take up that discussion).

Again, some ponderings to keep your thoughts occupied for the weekend. No one responded to my last post and I'm not sure if it's because the topic is boring, stupid, or just a waste of time. If this is interesting to you….thought exercises, speak up and let's talk about it.

(EDIT: There was a migration in the blog to a new server and I think the default setting of no comments has stuck for new posts. I fixed it for this one, so if you have thoughts you want to share, please do. It was an oversight that I asked for opinions and then gave you no avenue to do it. Really, I'm not THAT closed minded. haha)

I have been thinking about those types of "character" issues because of the Adam Kokesh interview last night. See, I'm a libertarian. And his overall ideals fit in exactly with mine. And he really talked a good game last night. His handler and coach must be really proud. I was impressed.

And then I look at what is underneath the glossy, slick, and oh-so-properly presented Candidate For Office and I cannot reconcile the two.

We all have a past. Good decisions and bad litter our histories like grains of sand on a smooth clean floor. You can't walk across that floor without seeing the evidence or feeling that grit between your toes. Nobody is perfect. But there are different underlying reasons for the bad decisions that make a difference in the character of our person. I may make a bad financial decision and end up in the poor house. But I won't make a bad decision that purposefully hurts another person. It's not in my character.

Adam Kokesh's character is lacking. He is comfortable with declaring himself a former Marine Sergeant. Yes, at one time, he was that rank. But when he left, he was a lower rank. What if a Staff Sergeant was busted down to a Private? Is it morally right and relevant to say he was a SSG in the Army and to use that highest rank achieved as a selling point when ultimately, he or she did something egregious enough to garner a demotion? That is a reflection of character. Misdirection, sleight-of-hand, details left out.

So then we come back to what I was thinking about…does that lack of character, or maybe excess of a certain type of character bode well or ill for an elected officer? Do you judge a candidate by the issues and talking points alone, or do you look at the overall candidate, including the evidence of past and present character flaws, and try to decide if that candidate is worthy of your vote?

Unfortunately, last night there was not enough time to dig deeper into what many of us consider serious issues and activities that Kokesh chose to engage in. We are not in his district and won't be voting for him, so in the end, I guess it doesn't matter, but it is a serious thought exercise.

You can find BTR Youserved here.

You can find previous Kokesh posts here on ASP here, here, here, and here (in chronological order).

Each year, as you know, the Girl Scouts sell their over-priced, but overly-yummy cookies. And each year, I've tried to get together a bunch of people to help send some of these cookies to deployed troops. Since many of the readers of this site are in small towns or in the boonies where the Girl Scouts tend to ignore, I give people an opportunity to support the cause here!

I have 18 additional cases of cookies I'm trying to ship to Soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan (not nearly as many as normal, but I started too late this year). What I need to do is raise another $300 to purchase and ship these cookies. I've already raised about $400 which takes care of most of the purchasing.

If you'd like to help, either use the paypal link on the sidebar and type "Girl Scout Cookies" in the notes of your donation or send me an email for a direct mail address to which you can send a check. Once I've raised the right amount of money, I'll update this post. I'll also let you know when I'm getting close so I don't raise more than I need. I'm using my birthday money to pay for some as well!

"Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, WAR has Never Solved Anything."

"U.S. Marines – Certified Counselors to the 72 Virgins Dating Club."

"U.S. Air Force – Travel Agents To Allah"

"Stop Global Whining"

"When In Doubt, Empty The Magazine"

"Naval Corollary: Dead Men Don't Testify."

"The Marine Corps – When It Absolutely, Positively Has To Be Destroyed Overnight"

"Death Smiles At Everyone – Marines Smile Back"

"Marine Sniper – You can run, but you'll just die tired!"

"What Do I Feel When I Kill A Terrorist? A Little Recoil"

"Marines – Providing Enemies of America an Opportunity To Die For their Country Since 1775"

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It"

"Happiness Is A Belt-Fed Weapon"

"It's God's Job to Forgive Bin Laden – It's Our Job To Arrange The Meeting"

"Artillery Brings Dignity to What Would Otherwise Be Just A Vulgar Brawl"

"One Shot, Twelve Kills – U.S. Naval Gun Fire Support"

"My Kid Fought In Iraq So Your Kid Can Party In College"

"Machine Gunners – Accuracy By Volume"

"A Dead Enemy Is A Peaceful Enemy – Blessed Be The Peacemakers"

"If You Can Read This, Thank A Teacher. If You Can Read It In English, Thank A Veteran"

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But the U.S. ARMED FORCES don't have that problem." … Ronald Reagan

A person’s sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter and is not a bar to entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct

I then explained the LAW behind why that policy exists. I want to print that law AGAIN because there are still some knuckleheads that seem to think that the DADT policy is a military policy. Title 10 states:

`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

`(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

`(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

`(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

`(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Now, I feel like I can express my opinion on this law since senior leaders are allowed to express theirs. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has mentioned that he thinks the law should be overturned. He said, "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity, theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

I don't agree. They don't have to lie since they're not supposed to talk about it and we're not allowed to ask. If you keep your mouth shut about being gay, what's there to lie about? If Admiral Mullen and others think it's a "lie of omission" then they should pressure Congress to just outright ban homosexuals from serving. Then, everyone's conscience is clear.

General Ray Odierno is also supportive of removing the ban. He believes that everyone; gay or straight, should be allowed to serve in the military "as long as we're still able to fight our wars." I would ask what happens IF (and that's a big IF) the drop the policy and we AREN'T able to fight our wars. I'm not saying we won't be able to, but assuming we couldn't then what's the plan? Some may ask, "why wouldn't we be able to fight our wars if we lift the ban?" Easy: the mass exodus of troops (10% or more) that would leave if such a policy were implemented, according to a Military Times study.

Today, thankfully, the Army's senior officer and Secretary stepped up in contradiction with the realities of what I believe would happen.

Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, testified before a Senate panel that he has "serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years. We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.”

And we don't! What I want to know is where is the enlisted leadership in all this? And I'm not talking about Sergeants Major. If Congress and the senior military officers REALLY want to know what the impact on the ground would be, they should ask the First Sergeants and company grade officers. The Army is run at the company level where the impact of this policy would be most felt, positive or negative.

All these surveys that go around stating that most Soldiers think the ban should be lifted must be a special bunch. I kid you not – I have not met ONE person who has taken ANY survey on the DADT policy and the effects of possibly lifting it. So, who is really taking these polls? There are over a million service members in uniform and they find 3,000 somewhere that are supposed to represent them all.

The truth is that the military is already breaking the law with the DADT policy. Basically, according to LAW, homosexuals are actually prohibited from serving in the military. So, it's a bit odd that our regulations state that "a person’s sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter and is not a bar to entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct." This actually directly contradicts the law of the land; in other words – illegal!

My personal opinion is that I don't think we should lift the ban. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it opens up a can of worms we don't want to open. The military isn't like 99% of the rest of society. Military service is completely different than working at a Burger King, preparing someone's taxes, selling Sony Playstations, or laying concrete. It involves sharing intimate parts of your life with members of the same sex who, presumably, won't fall in love with you and make a pass.

This policy is NOTHING like the arguments of allowing blacks or women into the military as some assert. As a matter of fact, that's a stupid and ludicrous assertion. Being black is an ethnicity. There are no moral codes surrounding whether or not someone is black, just as there are no moral codes about why someone is a woman. You can't hide that you're black and you can't hide that you're a female (well, most of the time). So, the parallel is ignorant.

Read my other posts on this topic HERE and HERE.

[Author's Note: The OPINIONS expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent those of any agency of the United States Government, expressly including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. This site is not designed, authorized, sanctioned, or affiliated, by or with, any agency of the United States Government, expressly including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. This post is in accordance with DODD 1344.10, which expressly permits me to "express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces." Therefore, I hereby declare that I do not write this post as a representative of the Armed Forces. Since I no longer own this site, consider this post also in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 4.1.1.6 of DODD 1344.10.]

The first is an engravable coin to honor a fallen Marine. The front side of each coin depicts the humble ceremony in which a member of the military passes the folded flag to a surviving family member. The coins are service specific, representing the sleeves of each service dress uniform, but THIS MEDALLION COMMEMORATES A FALLEN MARINE.

On the back of the coin is a brief description of the meaning of the folded flag and a banner on which the fallen hero's name can be inscribed. Currently the bid is only at a penny!! This is a great (inexpensive) way to honor our fallen AND help a worthy cause.

The second auction is the 2010 Gina Elise collectable calendar. Signed by Gina herself, the calendar has been a hit among troops and makes a great care package addition. The current bid is only $4.99 but we can do better than that. Gina on her calendar:

People ask me all the time how the “Pin-Ups For Vets” calendar project came to be…

A few years ago, I started seeing news articles about under-funded Veterans’ healthcare programs. Then, there were stories about older Veterans who lay in bed day after day, never receiving any visitors. Reports started surfacing on TV about the severe injuries sustained by our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The more I heard about the uphill battles of our Wounded Warriors, the more convinced I was of the need to produce a project that would bring in funds to support all of our hospitalized Veterans.

My late Grandpa Lou served in the army for 4 years during World War II. I wanted to do something to honor his name. I always loved the romance of those bygone eras – especially the 1940’s – and I drew inspiration from the World War II pin-up girls, whose photos and paintings boosted morale for our soldiers fighting overseas.

According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck — and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of a pro-gun organization.

No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration — and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow residents to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling — going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:

Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer — it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon…then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. - DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.

Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:

According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun — willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.

NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation — including dying — and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."

What to do?

1. Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
2. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
3. Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.

I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.

While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

For Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. NAGR maintains a gun rights blog that our members use to keep abreast of current gun rights developments.

To visit the blog, click here or point your browser to www.NationalGunRights.org/Blog.

[Author's Note: The OPINIONS expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent those of any agency of the United States Government, expressly including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. This site is not designed, authorized, sanctioned, or affiliated, by or with, any agency of the United States Government, expressly including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. This post is in accordance with DODD 1344.10, which expressly permits me to "express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces." Therefore, I hereby declare that I do not write this post as a representative of the Armed Forces. Since I no longer own this site, consider this post also in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 4.1.1.6 of DODD 1344.10.]

Tomorrow, Ranger Up is launching the first ever Ranger Up Charity Day. They're donating 20% of all of tomorrow’s sales to a very deserving organization – Soldiers’ Angels.

Soldiers’ Angels also some details about the event on their website. So, get off your ass and start working on that birthday and Christmas list for this year and buy some shirts! I've practically replaced my entire wardrobe with Ranger Up gear. As a matter of fact, I think the only thing they don't make that I need are suits.

So, Ranger Up, if you're listening: you'd start making some suits if you knew what was good for you! And cool ties! Holy cow, I could use some killer Ranger Up ties!

Pay no attention to the date, it's wrong! The date is February 17th, I promise.