[OPINION] Women deserve same chance as men to serve in combat

U.S. Army First Lt. Shaye Haver, center, and Capt. Kristen Griest, right, pose for photos with other female West Point alumni after an Army Ranger School graduation ceremony on Aug. 21 at Fort Benning, Ga. Haver and Griest became the Army's first female graduates of the rigorous Ranger School.

In America, all boys and girls should grow up confident in the knowledge they are free to pursue the dreams of their choice provided they are ready and able to perform the work.

For girls, in our view, this should include the dream of serving their nation on the field of battle.

The historic graduation of the first two female soldiers to complete the Army's rigorous, nine-week Ranger School (the Army opened Ranger School to women for the first time this year) - 1st Lt. Shaye Haver of Copperas Cove, Texas, and Capt. Kristen Griest of Orange, Conn. - on Aug. 21 in a ceremony at Fort Benning, Ga., focuses renewed attention on the issue of whether women in America's armed forces should serve in direct combat roles.

We believe women who wish to put their life on the line in defense of our country deserve nothing less than the same opportunities afforded men.

On Jan. 24, 2013, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted a ban on female soldiers serving in combat positions, thus setting in motion a three-year review and transition for each branch of America's armed services.

"Everyone is entitled to a chance," Panetta said at the time.

Under the ban, women were excluded from some 300,000 jobs. Today, some 240,000 positions, largely in infantry and armor units, remain closed to women. According to a June Military Times story, leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines this year must eliminate gender restrictions for all jobs or request, by Jan. 1, formal waivers from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

"We've really tried to give them the time that they need to finish their studies," Juliet Beyler, the Pentagon's director of officer and enlisted personnel management who is overseeing the transition, said for the Military Times story.

Advertisement

In our minds, the first graduations of female soldiers from Army Ranger school and the opening of all combat jobs to women are natural next steps in the evolution of women's roles in our nation's military.

Today, more than 200,000 women serve in America's armed forces, more than 35,000 of them as officers. Women have, in fact, distinguished themselves in combat-support positions, such as helicopter pilots and medics. Some 300,000 women served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan; more than 150 of them were killed and hundreds more were injured.

We do not wish to see the nation's defense diminished, so we do not support lowering of standards for combat positions, but if a woman can prove herself equal to men in completing the necessary training, then we believe she is entitled to the honor of wearing America's uniform into battle.

In nearly all professions and walks of life, we as a nation have moved beyond outdated, gender-based concerns and stereotypes to proper acceptance of equal opportunities for women. Because we have absolute confidence America's military is up to whatever task or challenge it might face, we believe it more than capable of breaking down remaining barriers to women in combat and making the new rules work.

Via: Sioux City Journal

Continue Reading....

U.S. Foreign Policy Is Overdue For Some Realism

According to a news report, Department of Defense officials admitted the United States might not be prepared to fight a sustained military conflict with Russia.  This is not the first time in recent weeks Pentagon officials have raised flags about the Russia threat and the U.S. lack of preparedness to deal with it.

Last month incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford told Senators that Russia posed the greatest threat to the United States. Not mincing words he said, “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia…If you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

General Paul Selva, slated to be the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reinforced General Dunford’s analysis during his own confirmation hearing.

For some, the most obvious lesson here is to come up with a plan to deter Russia and make up for the readiness gaps, although these things take years and a big bump in resources to do.

But there’s a deeper, more critical lesson policymakers and voters should not miss, because the United States isn’t flat-footed only when it comes to a potential conflict with Russia. China is also challenging the United States in key areas like cybersecurity and in missile development.

Here’s the problem: since the end of the Cold War the idea of war with modern countries with highly sophisticated militaries with nuclear weapons has seemed so unlikely, if not impossible, that U.S. leaders simply haven’t given it as much thought or devoted the necessary resources to keep elements of the military force, especially the nuclear deterrent, fully modernized.

And, since the Al Qaeda attack on September 11^th, 2001, most defense planning and resourcing has gone towards combatting Islamist radicals in the Middle East at the expense of defense planning for war with state actors.

President Obama’s mocking of Governor Romney’s assessment that Russia is the preeminent geopolitical foe is a well-known example. Another one was back in 2009, when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made waves with Senators from both parties when he said Russia and China had the ability to pose mortal threats to the United States.

Why has the mere mention of a threat from Russia or China received such blowback? A big cause is the pervasive belief that modern countries have simply “evolved,” beyond those blood-thirsty eras of the past. But, although technical advancements and cultural shifts make modern countries look quite different than they once did, the nature of international relations evolves no more than the nature of human beings evolves. Some things don’t and won’t ever change. Because human nature doesn’t change, the root causes of war don’t either.

Thucydides, in studying the causes of wars, observed that people are motivated to go to war for a variety of reasons, including “honor, fear, and interest.”

As long as people remain self-interested, it is always possible they will threaten war.

This is the heart of realism. The past 6 years have shown what happens when national leaders formulate security policy based on an idealistic view of people, countries, and international relations.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Secretary Kerry remarked, “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” as though Secretary Kerry really believes that the 21^st century ushered in a new era in which land-grabs are simply inconceivable. If Russia believes the net result of annexing Crimea is a boost in national pride, an increase in power, and instills fear in the NATO alliance of which Russia has stated is its number one foe, why wouldn’t it?

Recall another head-scratcher, this one by President Obama in his first U.N. address. He said, “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.”  They can’t? It sure is a pleasant thought—and a quick glance at the global state of affairs shows it has absolutely no basis in reality, and anyone who holds this view should be denied the responsibility of safeguarding the American people.  

Now during the nuclear age the stakes have never been higher. American policymakers and strategists must hold a realistic view of people and nations, and return to thinking seriously about deterrence.

In 2009 President Obama laid out his “Prague Agenda” that called for steps that would bring the world down a path to zero nuclear weapons. He proclaimed, “Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century.”

The Prague Agenda is rooted in idealism. It is rooted in the false premises that countries (and therefore, people) are basically good and deserving of equal treatment, and that arms control, not war or the fear of war, keeps nations in place. One can look to the Prague Agenda for what is behind many of the Obama administration’s foreign policy blunders.

For instance, it is what is behind the Iran Deal. In the President’s Prague Speech he said that Iran, seemingly just by way of existing, has a “rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically.” All evidence suggests the entire Iran Deal rests on the belief that despite Iran’s Islamist inclinations and clear objective to become the preeminent power in the Middle East, it will become a beacon of pluralism and human flourishing once flushed with cash and forgiven for its past (and current and ongoing) transgressions.

The Prague Agenda is also what is behind the New START Treaty with Russia, which will further reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Indeed, since the Cold War, the U.S. has cut the arsenal, ceased to test it, and failed to adequately modernize it. In his speech President Obama said the United States would seek to further “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy” and persuade others to do the same-- despite it being in their interest to do the opposite.

This brings us to our modern dilemma that Pentagon leaders are now trying to grapple with. Russia has invaded a sovereign nation, shown blatant disregard for agreements and treaties, moved nuclear weapons front and center in its military strategy, and has even threatened to employ nuclear weapons.

China is also becoming more aggressively expansionist and is in the midst of undergoing its own nuclear and missile modernization program.

Despite the steps President Obama and his Administration took to implement the Prague Agenda, by the time his term expires, there will be more for idealists to do should another idealist enter the White House.

Another idealist might continue to elevate arms control above resourcing the military, might seek to further cut the U.S. nuclear deterrent, continue to delay the promised modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad, seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, and continue to prohibit the United States from even the possibility of developing new nuclear weapons necessary for maintaining a credible force.

Meanwhile, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea--- regimes with values very different with those of the United States---will be motivated by “honor, fear, and interest” just as rulers have since the beginning of time. They will pursue military capabilities and strategies that will directly conflict with those of the United States.

What the United States needs in power are realists who understand that given human nature war is always possible and we better earnestly seek to deter the most dangerous kind and prepare to win should deterrence fail.

Via: Real Clear Defense, 

Continue Reading...

Obama, Clinton Foundation Donors Sold ‘Green’ Fuel to Military for $149 per Gallon

San Francisco’s Solazyme also received millions in stimulus funds from DOE

The CEO and Board of Directors of Solazyme, a company the military paid $149 per gallon for “alternative” fuel, have donated more than $300,000 to Democratic candidates and committees, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

Recipients of significant donations included the Obama Victory Fund and the Democratic National Committee. Additionally, Solazyme donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report found that the Department of Defense (DOD) paid Solazyme $149 per gallon for fuel made of algal oil, costing taxpayers a total of $223,500 in 2009. The group also received a $21 million stimulus grant from Department of Energy in 2009.

“Based in South San Francisco, Solazyme’s mission is to improve our lives and our planet by producing sustainable, high-performance oils and ingredients derived from microalgae,” the company states. Solazyme claims that their process serves as a better alternative to limited resources such as petroleum, vegetable oils, and animal fats.

Three members of Solazyme’s Board of Directors have donated hundreds of thousands to Dems, which include more than $50,000 in donations that benefited President Obama.

Solazyme’s co-founders, Jonathan Wolfson and Harrison Dillon, have together donated more than $7,000 to Democratic candidates and committees.

A member of Solazyme’s management team, Peter Licari, donated to both Republicans and Democrats before he was employed by Solazyme. Licari donated $16,000 to Republicans and more than $25,000 to Democrats while he was employed by Complete Healthcare Resources.

“Solazyme has been propelled over the years by an extraordinary group of people,” states Wolfson. “Our employees, customers, partners and investors have been and will continue to be our greatest resources.”

DOD has stated that one of its strategic energy goals is to expand its energy supply options by investing in alternative fuels such as the kind Solazyme produces. This type of renewable fuel comes at much higher cost than petroleum fuel.

From fiscal years 2007 to 2014, the DOD purchased 32 billion gallons of petroleum fuel for $107.2 billion, which comes to $3.35 per gallon. This means that Solazyme’s price per gallon was 44 times that of the average price of regular petroleum fuel.

Christine Travis, manager of corporate communications for Solazyme, said the $149 per gallon figure is “incorrect” and that the number is inflated due to research and development costs.

“The dollar amount you cited is incorrect because that total cost includes the R&D portion we performed at the request of the DOD that was part of the testing and certification program with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy,” said Travis.

Travis says that this month Solazyme announced they are supplying renewable fuel to UPS and that it has been a few years since they’ve worked with DOD on fuels.

However, she praised the Navy’s effort to increase their use of alternative fuels.

“We applaud the Navy for pursuing the bold goal of supplying its operations with 50 percent alternative fuels by 2020. Our dependence on oil from foreign nations—some of them hostile, some of them unstable—is one of the greatest threats to our security as a nation and to our allies overseas who rely on Persian Gulf oil and have no or insignificant indigenous petroleum resources of their own.”

In regards to co-founders and board of directors donating to Democrats, Travis said Solazyme has no policy on political contributions.

“Our company does not have a PAC, and our company does not have a policy on employee or board member political contributions,” Travis said. “Anyone in our company can support anyone they want.”

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

REPORT: RUSSIAN HACK ON PENTAGON THE ‘MOST SOPHISTICATED’ IN MILITARY HISTORY

The Pentagon took down the Joint Staff unclassified email system after Russian hackers attacked the emails of 4,000 military and civilian personnel. The email has been offline for the past 11 days.

US officials called the hack the “‘most sophisticated’ cyberbreach in U.S. military history.” In fact, the level of sophistication is so high the officials did not rule out is a “state entity” took part in the hack.

They also told The Daily Beast they are “creating mock hacking scenarios” before the personnel can access the system. The hackers used a “spear phishing attack” to obtain personal information on numerous users.

The attack occurred on July 25, only 16 days after Marine General Joe Dunford, a nominee to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services that Russia is the greatest threat to American national security. Dunford placed Russia above China, North Korea, and the Islamic State because of its “rapidly expanding military.”

“My assessment today, senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security,” he declared.

Relations between Russia and the West soured immensely after Moscow invaded Ukraine in March 2014, annexed Crimea, and issued threats against other former Soviet republics. The European Union and America passed numerous sanctions against Russian companies and oligarchs while NATO added more security to Eastern Europe nations who fear they might be Russia’s next target.

US State Department spokesman Mark Toner fired back that Secretary of State John Kerry does not agree.

“The secretary doesn’t agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States, nor China, quite frankly,” retorted Toner. “You know, these are major powers with whom we engage and cooperate on a number of issues, despite any disagreements we may have with them. Certainly we have disagreements with Russia and its activities within the region, but we don’t view it as an existential threat.”

Kerry has also made similar claims, despite working close with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the past 16 months. Kerry denied many times that Russian soldiers are stationed in east Ukraine until February, even though he constantly faced a mountain of evidence. He added more pain to American allies when he admitted Russian propaganda worked on him.

“The question asked earlier about… how they present things and the lies about their presence in Ukraine and the training, I mean, you know, it’s stunning but it has an impact in places where it isn’t countered,” he said. “Propaganda works.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Members of the Military Have a Right to Effective Self-Defense

Since 2008, at least 34 service-members and civilians have died in multiple-casualty shootings at military facilities. Dozens more have been injured. Fort Hood, Little Rock, the Washington Navy Yard, Fort Hood again, and Chattanooga — the names are sadly familiar, with at least three attackers apparently sharing jihadist motivations.

 Reading the accounts of these attacks, they tend to share the same, terrible storylines. In each case there’s a deadly lag between the time of the attack and the first police response; in each case trained (but unarmed) warriors either desperately try to scramble to safety or throw themselves at attackers in suicidal, hopeless charges. In only one instance — at Chattanooga — is there evidence that a service-member fired shots in self-defense, and in that case he may have actually defied Department of Defense directives to attempt to save his own life and the lives of others.

It has never made much sense to mandate that America’s military bases and recruiting centers become, in essence, gun-free zones, where our most well-trained men and women live largely under the protection of civilian police. In 1992, when President George H. W. Bush’s administration implemented the policy, American soldiers were under threat from Islamic terrorists as they are now. Today, the nonsensical nature of the policy is just even more obvious, when we know that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and so-called “lone wolf” jihadists are actively seeking to kill American soldiers here at home. 

Thankfully, years overdue, the Department of Defense is taking steps to increase security and may at long last allow at least some of our warriors to defend themselves. Last Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter issued a two-page memorandum in response to the “ongoing threat” from the deadly euphemism of the month, “Homegrown Violent Extremists.” In the memo, he noted that existing Pentagon policy includes the “option of additional armed personnel” for “security, law enforcement, and counterintelligence duties.” In other words, there is already some leeway to implement basic security measures (which raises a separate question as to why “additional armed personnel” hadn’t already been deployed). But he went further, directing “all Components to consider any additional protection measures including changes to policies and procedures that protect our force against the evolving threat.” He gave a short timeline, indicating that he wants to review proposals by August 21, in less than three weeks.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

The Few, the Proud, the Unarmed

Ever get the feeling that you went to sleep one night and awakened to find somebody stole your country and replaced it with an insane asylum?

We trust our warriors with weapons in foreign countries but not on their home turf? This is what’s flying over the D.C. cuckoo’s nest.

Imagine that you’re being held hostage by the “Death to America” Islamic Republic of Iran. Your president negotiates a nuclear “agreement” with the regime, but he’s too needy and impotent to secure your release as part of the agreement. Is there any message that would bring more joy to your heart than: “The Marines have landed?”

They’d be packing heat, unlike the unarmed victims at Chattanooga, Fort Hood, the DC Navy Yard, and Little Rock -- United States of America.

The valiant volunteer members of our military swear an oath:

“to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

About that “domestic” part. Despite the murders of four “officially” unarmed Marines and a Navy petty officer in Chattanooga, Tenn. on July 16, by a heavily-armed follower of Allah, some geldings in the federal follies are still studying whether to allow our military to be armed in U.S. recruiting offices, on military bases, and in public.

Responding to the Chattanooga attack, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter approved a memo telling Marines not to wear their uniforms in public. The Pentagon also told recruiters to “close the blinds for added security.”

In other words, behave like a hostage in your homeland: The Few, the Cloistered, the Incognito. There’s a sure-fire recruiting ad.

Are we fed up yet with this administration treating our military so contemptuously?

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Civil defense: Citizens, vets, guardsmen and cops take up arms to protect military facilities

It’s supposed to be the other way around, but civilians – as well as state and local authorities – have taken up the task of protecting the military in the wake of the Chattanooga terror attack.

Citizens groups, veterans, local law enforcement and the National Guard are all standing armed watch over the men and women of the military, protecting them from terrorists and – some say - from a federal policy that leaves service members unable to defend themselves on Pentagon property.

“After the recent shooting in Chattanooga, it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these types of attacks on our own soil,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said. “Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”

“We’re just a group of citizens who exercise their rights and do things like this when it comes to filling security gaps where the government falls short,” spokesman Chris McIntire

- Chris McIntire, 3% of Idaho

The July 16 attack that left four Marines and a Navy sailor dead at Chattanooga’s Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center, and followed a shooting at a recruiting center nearby, has sparked a national conversation on the 23-year-old policy. But governors, sheriffs, police chiefs and concerned citizens across the nation are not waiting for Washington to change the law.

The governors of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,  Texas and Wisconsin have all signed orders in the last several days to allow National Guard troops to carry loaded guns on bases and at military recruiting centers in their states.

Citizens, veterans and local police are also stepping up to protect service members.

In Idaho, an 800-member volunteer group calling itself “3% of Idaho” is guarding military recruiting centers in an effort it dubs “Operation Guardian Angel.”

“We’re just a group of citizens who exercise their rights and do things like this when it comes to filling security gaps where the government falls short,” spokesman Chris McIntire, who said his group is not a militia and takes its name from the number of colonists believed to have taken part in the Revolutionary War, told KBOI 2News on Tuesday.

James Maxwell was one of five men who stood guard Wednesday outside a Farmington, N.M., recruiting substation. He told the Daily Times service members deserve protection since the attack in Chattanooga and amid calls from ISIS for its "lone wolf" sympathizers to attack Americans who wear the uniform.

"They weren't expecting anything to happen in Chattanooga," he told the newspaper. "They're sitting ducks here."

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Medal of Honor Recipient Dakota Meyer Demands ‘Full Institution’ of 2nd Amendment in Wake of Chattanooga Attack

U.S. Marine Dakota Meyer, who received the Medal of Honor in 2011 for his service in Afghanistan, called for “a full institution of the 2nd Amendment” following the attacks on two Chattanooga, Tennessee military centers in a Facebook post Thursday.

“I carry a firearm with me at all times legally under the conceal and carry laws in the area that I am in,” Meyer wrote in the social media post. “I do not call for a disarming of American but instead a full institution of the Second Amendment so that we may defend ourselves as a country from all threats, both foreign and domestic.”

The Marine said that gun control is not the answer to such attacks, slamming “special interest groups” for spreading gun control “propaganda” throughout the country.

“Now is not the time to come out waiving photos of bullet holes in the glass calling for more gun control and spinning the story to yield a further separation of peoples in the Unites States,” Meyer wrote. “Now is the time to call on the American people to ignore the propaganda that special interest groups have been shoving in our faces and unite as a country so that we may become our neighbor’s keeper.”

The Marine also offered his “thoughts and prayers” to those affected by the attacks, which killed four Marines and wounded a police officer and another serviceman. He declared the shooting, allegedly carried out by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, an “act of domestic terrorism, regardless of how Washington spins it.”

“This was a planned attack on the United Stated Military on United States soil,” Meyer said. 

According to law enforcement officials, the suspected gunman was born in Kuwait before becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States. His name was not on any U.S. terror watch list.

As of Friday morning, three of the Marines killed in the attacks had been identified as Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, Marine Skip Wells, and Marine David Wyatt. 

Via: WFB

Continue Reading...

Disaster: Today's Warrior Purge in the U.S. military

“Where do we find such men?”

That memorable line comes from James Mitchner’s Korean War novel, The Bridges of Toko-Ri.  It refers to intrepid aviators lifting from a carrier, flying into untold danger.  They know they may not return.  They launch anyway.  In boldness unfathomable to many, they willingly, artfully fly into peril.  They are warriors, men of rare talent, intellect, and courage – a combination essential for victory.

Needed warriors are now being purged from the U.S. military.  If America went to war right now with China or Russia, we could lose because of these purges.  We’re losing top-level warrior-leaders to make the crucial differences in battle.  They’re being systematically drummed out as politically incorrect.  When the going gets tough, political correctness (PC) is useless.  Then the brilliant, wily fighters, the coolest heads, the most courageous warriors, are needed to lead regardless of social views or record.

Today, in large measure, our fighting forces are led by briefcase-carrying busybodies, yes-men more interested in enforcing political beliefs and social change than leading in battle.  They care more about their careers than what’s happening to the military and thus the country.  Just last week, a new downsizing of the army was announced – without a protest.

Warriors are not prized.  They are criticized and ridiculed.  Up-and-coming warriors who admire the purged want to emulate them, see what’s happening, and are exiting as a result.

“Soldiers like George Patton or Curtis LeMay are no longer wanted,” writes LCOL Greg Lee, USMC (ret.) in a well-circulated internet forward.  “The fundamental job of the military, ‘kill bad people and break things,’ has become critically hampered by ‘rules of engagement’ [and policies] who’s [sic] guiding logic is political outcome, not successful combat. If the US military is ever defeated, it will be because [rather than honing fighting skills, nurturing fighting thinkers and leaders] it is running the best Day Care centers in the world.”

Political correctness, social change, even care for the enemy are now the battle cries of the U.S. military hierarchy in the Pentagon.  The rules of engagement (ROI), changed to limit civilian deaths under President Obama, are now so dangerous that American soldiers have been made into sitting ducks.  In years past, generals and admirals resigned over such disregard for their troops.  Today’s leaders acquiesce and espouse confusing non-military goals.  The president confounds Coast Guard graduates saying their enemy is climate change.  He sends 3,000 troops to battle...Ebola?

Pentagon priorities are women’s and gay rights and defeating the world’s social ills – disease, hunger, and poverty.  These are worthy causes for a Peace Corps, church group, or diplomat, but not for the military, whose sole constitutional purpose is defending Americans against military threats.  Do you send a sniper to nurse a baby?

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Iran parliament bans inspector access to military sites

Iranian lawmakers voted Sunday to ban inspector access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of a future deal with world powers over its contested nuclear program.

The bill, if ratified, could complicate the ongoing talks in Vienna between Iran and the six-nation group — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — as they face a self-imposed June 30 deadline. The talks are focused on reaching a final accord that curbs Iran's nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.

“All parties to the negotiation are well aware of what is necessary for a final deal, including the access and transparency that will meet our bottom lines,” A State Department official told Fox News Sunday. “We expect that there will be many voices and opinions on the difficult issues as we work towards a final deal in the days ahead, but our team is focused on what is happening in the negotiating room.

Of 213 lawmakers present on Sunday, 199 voted in favor of the bill, which also demands the complete lifting of all sanctions against Iran as part of any final nuclear accord. The bill must be ratified by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog, to become a law.

The terms stipulated in the bill allow for international inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, but forbid any inspections of military facilities.

The bill states in part: "The International Atomic Energy Agency, within the framework of the safeguard agreement, is allowed to carry out conventional inspections of nuclear sites."

However, it concludes that "access to military, security and sensitive non-nuclear sites, as well as documents and scientists, is forbidden." It also would require Iran's foreign minister to report to parliament every six months on the process of implementing the accord.

Iran's nuclear negotiators say they already have agreed to grant United Nations inspectors "managed access" to military sites under strict control and specific circumstances. That right includes allowing inspectors to take environmental samples around military sites.

But Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khameni, have strongly rejected the idea of Iranian scientists being interviewed.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

WEEKLY REPUBLICAN ADDRESS, SATURDAY JUNE, 21, 2015

WASHINGTON, DC – In this week’s address, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) calls on President Obama to join Republicans’ efforts to make sure our troops have the resources they need and the pay raise they have earned.  On Thursday, Senate Democrats blocked a troop funding bill in an attempt to extract more money for the IRS and the EPA.  

“Mr. President, I appeal to you as commander-in-chief to stop this game your party is playing with our national security,” Rep. Zinke says in the address. “It’s dangerous, and it’s wrong.  Do the right thing, help us give our troops the resources they need and the raise they have earned.”

Rep. Zinke is a fifth generation Montanan, former state senator and a 23-year U.S. Navy SEAL veteran.  In 2014, he became the first Navy SEAL elected to the House. 

Via: Speaker.gov

Continue Reading....