Louie Gohmert Gets Why Some Texans Are Worried About a Military Takeover
The Texas congressman is joining others in his state calling for the Pentagon to alter the Jade Helm 15 military exercises.
U.S. Special Operations Command is preparing to launch a five-month, multi-state exercise across private and public land to prepare Army special forces for threats anywhere in the world. Or at least that’s what the Pentagon would want you to believe. Officials and citizens in Texas, one of the states involved, see something potentially more nefarious in the exercise, dubbed Jade Helm 15. And now Rep. Louie Gohmert is joining them.
“Over the past few weeks, my office has been inundated with calls referring to the Jade Helm 15 military exercise scheduled to take place between July 15 and September 15, 2015,” Gohmert said in a Tuesday statement. “This military practice has some concerned that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law. Certainly, I can understand these concerns.”
“When leaders within the current administration believe that major threats to the country include those who support the Constitution, are military veterans, or even ‘cling to guns or religion,’ patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned,” Gohmert wrote.
The congressman took particular issue with the layout and labels of the Pentagon map for the exercise. “Once I observed the map depicting ‘hostile,’ ‘permissive,’ and ‘uncertain’ states and locations, I was rather appalled that the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority, ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution.” Gohmert called on the Pentagon to change the map, the names on the map, and said “the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states.”
The Pentagon has insisted that claims that Jade Helm is anything other than a military exercise—and one that it says would have in-state economic benefits—are completely bunk.
“Jade Helm is a long planned and coordinated exercise,” a Pentagon spokesman told CNN. “We are not taking over anything.”
But that hasn’t quelled concern. In late April, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sent an open letter to the Texas State Guard asking it to keep a tight watch on the exercise. “During the training operation,” Abbott wrote, “it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights, and civil liberties will not be infringed.”
On Monday, Abbott defended the letter, saying that his office is “playing a pivotal role of government and that is to provide information to people who have questions.”
Over the weekend, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz told Bloomberg that his Senate office “has reached out to the Pentagon to inquire about this exercise,” saying he has “no reason to doubt [the Pentagon’s] assurances, but I understand the reason for concern and uncertainty.”
There has been plenty more concern from Texans around the state, egged on in part by conspiracy-driven sites such as InfoWars, as well as minor celebrities. “Whether deterrence, display of power, or something more covert or devious, let’s not come with any patronizing nonsense of impotence and simplicity when its origin is in Washington,” writes martial-arts icon Chuck Norris.
Former Texas governor and potential repeat presidential candidate Rick Perry, though, thinks Abbott has gone too far. “It’s OK to question your government. I do it on a regular basis,” Perry said Tuesday. “But the military is something else.”
The Pentagon only has so many more ways of saying, “trust us—not Walker, Texas Ranger.”
Read on HERE.
(now why is the military doing this? When they have all kinds of training areas in the USA and overseas where they train for any type of combat? Texas and all officials should stress this and find out the real reason for this so called training)
Extreme secrecy eroding support for Obama’s trade pact
Classified briefings and bill-readings in basement rooms are making members queasy.
If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.
If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.
Story Continued Below
And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.
“It’s like being in kindergarten,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who’s become the leader of the opposition to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda. “You give back the toys at the end.”
For those out to sink Obama’s free trade push, highlighting the lack of public information is becoming central to their opposition strategy: The White House isn’t even telling Congress what it’s asking for, they say, or what it’s already promised foreign governments.
The White House has been coordinating an administration-wide lobbying effort that’s included phone calls and briefings from Secretary of State John Kerry, Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and others. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has been working members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro has been talking to members of his home state Texas delegation.
Officials from the White House and the United States trade representative’s office say they’ve gone farther than ever before to provide Congress the information it needs and that the transparency complaints are just the latest excuse for people who were never going to vote for a new trade deal anyway.
“We’ve worked closely with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to balance unprecedented access to classified documents with the appropriate level of discretion that’s needed to ensure Americans get the best deal possible in an ongoing, high-stakes international negotiation,” said USTR spokesman Matt McAlvanah.
More to read found HERE.
(one would think that if this is so important, the administration would let all news outlets know everything!)
What It Would Take to Prove Global Warming
Recently, Reason‘s Ronald Bailey asked what it would take to convince conservatives and libertarians that global warming is real.
If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate [change] is occurring, what evidence would be?
This has since been picked up by Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post‘s token right-leaning blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. There’s no pressure: Bailey and Adler merely insinuate that you are “obscurantist”—that is, you hate new knowledge—if you don’t agree.
That, by the way—the smug insistence of global warming alarmists on presenting themselves as the embodiment of scientific knowledge as such—is one of the reasons I stopped taking them seriously. In fact, Ihave thought about what it would take to convince me global warming is real. And it’s pretty clear that Bailey has not thought about it.
He really hasn’t. He’s thought a lot about the various scientific claims made by those who insist global warming is a man-made catastrophe. But he has not thought about how those claims add up or how they would have to add up to be convincing. All Bailey’s piece amounts to is: here is a long list of factual claims that seem to support the global warming scare; how high do I have to pile up these claims before you are convinced?
There is no sense that the proof of global warming has to proceed according to some systematic method, requiring it to clear specific hurdles at specific stages. Which betrays an unscientific way of thinking.
When I refer to “global warming,” and when Bailey and Adler refer to it, that term is a stand-in, not just for the trivial claim that average global temperatures are rising, but for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”: i.e., global temperatures are rising, it’s our fault, and we’re all gonna die.
I’ve gone on record a long time ago sketching out what stages would be required to demonstrate that humans are causing rising global temperatures, never mind the much more dubious proposition that warmer weather is going to be a catastrophe. Let me elaborate on it here.
There are three main requirements.
1) A clear understanding of the temperature record.
The warmists don’t just have to show that temperatures are getting warmer, because variation is normal. That’s what makes “climate change” such an appallingly stupid euphemism. The climate is always changing. The environmentalists are the real climate-change “deniers” because they basically want global temperatures to maintain absolute stasis relative to 1970—not coincidentally the point at which environmentalists first began paying any attention to the issue.
Now go and read all of this HERE.