After waiting 30 days — so far — for the U.S. Army to fulfill my request via the Freedom of Information Act, I’ve concluded that Army officials would rather keep certain unclassified information about the so-called “green-on-blue” attacks in Afghanistan out of the public eye. Below is an update to my May 1 post on this topic.
Less than two weeks after Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, addressed the subject of the green-on-blue attacks during his March 22 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee (see video below), I learned of the existence of a Center for Army Lessons Learned handbook, titled, “Inside the Wire Threats — Afghanistan,” that the Army had either recently published or was soon to publish. I also learned from reading the transcript of the Feb. 1 testimony of several Department of Defense officials before members of the House Armed Services Committee on the subject of the “USE OF AFGHAN NATIONALS TO PROVIDE SECURITY TO U.S. FORCES.”
My desire to obtain a copy of the handbook stems from my suspicion that it contains information about underlying factors that may have contributed to the deaths of more than 50 American service members and the wounding of more than six-dozen others at the hands of their so-called “allies” — members of the police and army components of the Afghan National Security Force — since 2007.
APRIL 4, 2012
Because the Center for Army Lessons Learned is located at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., my first step toward obtaining a copy of the handbook involved calling LTC Jeffrey Allen, an Army public affairs officer at the post, and explaining what I was looking for. After the phone call, I repeated my request via email and received the following reply the same day, April 4: “OK, I have your request and have sent it out to a few possible agencies who may be working it. I hope to have an answer for you soon, but it may not be until tomorrow. I’ll do my best for you.”
APRIL 5, 2012
The following day, Colonel Allen sent me a follow-up message:
I found the source for the document, “Inside the Wire Threats,” and it looks like it’s only been available for about 24 hours, so I apologize for not being immediately familiar with the product when you called yesterday.
The issue I have is the booklet is labeled as For Official Use Only, with a limited distribution. As such, I am unable to provide it to you.
Or, two, you might be able to gain access by requesting that ISAF downgrade the classification.
He went on to provide contact information for the ISAF and NATO public affairs folks before closing with the statement, “That is about the extent I am able to do for you at this time.”
That same day, I took Colonel Allen’s advice and sent a media request to LTC Jimmie Cummings, public affairs officer at the International Security Assistance Force Headquarters in Afghanistan, explaining that Colonel Allen had pointed me in his direction.
APRIL 10, 2012
On April 10, I heard back from Colonel Allen via email. He explained that he had heard from the folks at ISAF, and they had told him I would have to file a FOIA request for a copy of the handbook.
Because the handbook is classified as “For Official Use Only,” I understand that it must be downgraded, modified or have the classification removed before it can be released for public consumption via FOIA. Though such a change in classification is not unusual, especially when public interest in a subject is high, Army officials are in no hurry to change the classification of this document, according to Colonel Allen.
“There is no support for a downgrade in classification at this time,” he said at the end of his message, adding, “It’s a brand new manual, so I’m not surprised.”
After reading Colonel Allen’s message, I immediately submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Army’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Division in Alexandria, Va.
APRIL 30, 2012
On April 30, I received a letter — dated April 19 and inside an envelope postmarked April 24 — from Barbara Harris at the Army FOIA Office. She informed me that my request had been forwarded to the Records Management/FOIA/PA office at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. In other words, I had made the complete circuit, going from Colonel Allen at Fort Leavenworth to ISAF to the Department of the Army and, now, back to Fort Leavenworth.
MAY 7, 2012
On Monday, I made several attempts by phone to reach the Adjutant General’s office at the Kansas Army post best known as the home of the U.S. Military Disciplinary Barracks. Eventually, Brett Rosene picked up the phone.
Upon hearing my name and the subject matter of my call, Rosene explained to me that he was familiar with my FOIA request, that it was in the hands of Army legal officers and that he was expecting a reply within a couple of days.
MAY 10, 2012
Today, after more than a “couple of days” had passed, I called Rosene again. Unfortunately, he explained, he had not yet heard back from the lawyers. Before hanging up, however, he assured me he would be on the phone with them to find out the status of my request. As of this posting at 3:50 p.m. Central, I had not heard back from him.
CONCLUSION
My advice to the Army: Redact. Revise. Rewhatever you need to do with that document — but don’t try to cover up the facts when it comes to factors that are contributing to the green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan. Our men and women in uniform deserve answers.
UPDATE 5/11/12 at 9:26 a.m. Central: Another green-on-blue death reported today in Afghanistan.
UPDATE 5/16/12 at 7:15 a.m. Central: We’re now on Day 36 without an answer.
UPDATE 5/16/12 at 9:50 a.m. Central: It appears someone else sees problems in DoD’s dealing with the ANSF risks, too.
Today at 10 a.m. Eastern, a crowd estimated at more than 34,000 gathered for commencement activities at Liberty University, the world’s largest Christian university, in Lynchburg, Va. Regardless of what he told those in attendance, Mitt Romney stood out as the “odd duck” for one reason.
Mitt Romney
Not because he’s the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
Not because he’s a successful businessman, husband and father.
But because he’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, an organization most evangelical Christians consider a cult.
Page 173 of the 2011/2012 Liberty U Graduate Course Catalog, the course description for THEO 678, Western and New Religions describes it that way, and I suspect the vast majority of the 14,000-plus members of the school’s largest-ever graduating class agree with that description — which they apply equally to Christian Scientists, Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists.
Now, the question about evangelical Christians at Liberty University and elsewhere is, “Will they vote in favor of a Mormon becoming president of the United States?” And the answer is an emphatic “YES!!!”
To explain my affirmative response, I reach back to a Jan. 21, 2008, postin which I wrote the following:
“I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.”
Asked who he would support in the 2008 presidential race, a Southern Baptist friend of mine cited the statement above, made by Martin Luther, the protestant reformer who lived five centuries ago, as a partial basis for his decision.
In explaining his decision, my friend cited Jimmy Carter, also a Baptist, as the epitome of an incompetent Christian who served as president of the United States.
So who is the “competent Turk” my Baptist friend say he would support? Republican Mitt Romney, a Mormon.
FYI: Though my Baptist friend did not give any clues as to who, exactly, fit the description of an “incompetent Christian” in 2008, I can tell you with certainty that he was talking about Barack Obama. Today, I’m calling Obama an incompetent Muslim Christian, too!
UPDATE 5/12/12 at 11:02 a.m. Central: Below is a one-minute clip of Romney’s commencement speech.
Bill Clinton is the stereotypical southern Democrat politician: smooth, personable, sly as a fox, everyman’s friend on the outside, but tough, manipulative, hard as nails, and totally corrupt on the inside. He and his wife have been through many adventures and misadventures together, and when their final story is written a generation or two from now those who read it will shake their heads in disbelief… especially when they review the events of the week of April 30, 2012.
Unlike Barack Obama, Clinton was not corrupted by the power of the presidency; Clinton was already corrupt when he arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In attempting to deflect charges of sexual harassment by an Arkansas state employee, Paula Corbin Jones, Clinton added a long list of offenses to his resume. Because of his unwillingness to admit guilt, the American people found themselves led by a man who was guilty of rape, aggravated assault, perjury, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, contempt of court, evidence tampering, witness tampering, lying to federal investigators, Pendleton Act violations, and other offenses… almost all of which he committed while serving as president of the United States.
In attempting to shield himself from the charges lodged by Ms. Jones, Clinton called upon his family, his friends, and scores of political subordinates to “fall on their swords” for him. In doing so, 71 aides and associates engaged in criminal conspiracy, 32 were guilty of obstruction of justice, and 30 perjured themselves. Dozens more either lied to or interfered with federal investigators, suborned the perjury of others, or engaged in evidence or witness tampering.
Like his Democratic successor, Barack Obama, Clinton was blessed with a thoroughly corrupt Attorney General. Between January 1993 and January 2001, Attorney General Janet Reno ignored prima facie evidence of criminal offenses on the part of White House functionaries, preventing FBI Director Louis Freeh and his agents from doing the job they were paid to do. In all, 3 corporations and 111 individuals were shown to have committed felony crimes, 56 were indicted, 58 went unindicted, and only 40 were convicted. Three resigned rather than face indictment and three were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony.
Leaving the White House in January 2001, Clinton left behind the worst pardon-selling scandal in American history. A cocaine smuggler from California won a Clinton pardon after paying a $200,000 fee to Hillary’s brother. Four Hasidic Jews were pardoned after defrauding the federal government out of $11 million by applying for funds for a school that didn’t exist (The Hasidic community of New Square, N.Y., later voted 1400 to 12 for Hillary in her New York senate race.) When Hillary needed the Puerto Rican vote in her senate race, Clinton pardoned 14 Puerto Rican terrorists who claimed responsibility for more than 120 bombings in New York and Chicago that took 6 lives and injured some 130 people. And, of course, everyone remembers Denise Rich and the pardon purchased for her fugitive ex-husband, financier Marc Rich.
In a March 11, 2001 op-ed column, liberal commentator Chris Matthews put the Clintons into perspective. In discussing Hillary Clinton’s role in the blatant selling of pardons, Matthews said, “The junior senator from New York reminds me of the drug dealer’s wife in (the movie) ‘Traffic.’ She makes it her business not to know her husband’s.”
Matthews went on to remind us that Mrs. Clinton admitted to innocently “passing envelopes” from the pardon-seekers to the White House counsel’s office. He said, “What convenience of mind! She only ‘attended a meeting,’ only ‘heard rumors,’ only ‘passed envelopes.’ Admitting the fact of her behavior, she denies its purpose. She admits what is provable, denies what is not.”
But Hillary Clinton was no slouch in her own right. According to a May 27, 1994 story in the Washington Post, Mrs. Clinton deposited $1,000 in a commodity trading account in Arkansas in October 1978, during her husband’s term as Arkansas Attorney General. She was allowed to use those funds to purchase ten cattle futures contracts which would have cost any other investor $12,000. According to the Post, records of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange show that she was able to turn her initial ($1,000) investment into $6,300, overnight.
In just ten months of trading, Mrs. Clinton turned her $1,000 investment into nearly $100,000. In doing so, she relied on the advice of James B. Blair, who served as outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest employer in Arkansas. The Post also reported that a close examination of Mrs. Clinton’s trades “underscores Blair’s pivotal role” in her futures trading success.
In 2008, after being absent from the White House for eight years, Mrs. Clinton decided to fulfill her destiny by running for the Democratic presidential nomination. And while she was initially seen as a shoo-in for the nomination, she could not have foreseen that she would be opposed by a charismatic young black man from the streets of Chicago… a totally inexperienced candidate, backed by the most corrupt, most ruthless, political operatives in American political history.
A documentary titled We Will Not Be Silenced, produced by former Steven Spielberg associate Bettina Viviano, tells the story of how the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was stolen by the Obama organization. Viviano tells of a telephone conference call with Bill Clinton during which Clinton referred to Obama as being “ineligible for the presidency,” and as the “non-citizen.” She recalls Clinton saying, “He’s not legit. That’s the end of it, period, end of story.”
Viviano reports that it was well known within the Clinton organization that, at the appropriate time, Clinton would publicly disclose Obama’s lack of “natural born” eligibility. Click here to view Part 2 of the documentary.
But then, on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2008, a man named Timothy Dale Johnson walked into the Democratic Party state headquarters in Little Rock and shot the state chairman, Bill Gwatney, to death. Gwatney was one of Bill Clinton’s closest friends and political allies. This occurred just one day after Gwatney, a Clinton super-delegate, announced that the Arkansas delegation would cast all of their votes for Hillary on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, thus denying Barack Obama the 2008 nomination by acclamation.
Viviano is quoted as saying that she was told by a campaign staffer close to Hillary that the Gwatney assassination was a message: “Shut up, Bill, or you’re next.” However, the campaign staffer insisted that Clinton was still prepared to speak out about Obama’s lack of Article II, Section 1 eligibility. “And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter. Now we’ll go after her…’ And then Bill never said anything.”
Bill and Hillary Clinton have been dutiful Obama supporters ever since… but in recent days things have begun to turn a bit sour.
On the day that Hillary Clinton, now Obama’s Secretary of State, arrived in Beijing for high level talks with the Chinese, it was learned that a blind Chinese dissident, Cheng Guangcheng, had escaped house arrest and had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy. What would Hillary do? What grand strategy would the foreign policy geniuses at the White House devise to unravel the embarrassing situation in Beijing? Would the Obama administration grant asylum, as has been long-standing practice, or would they push Cheng out the front door to an uncertain fate?
On Wednesday, May 2, Cheng Guangcheng left the American embassy in the custody of Chinese authorities. Cheng has said that he wished to leave China to study in the United States. Will he be allowed to do so? If not, what will be his fate? Will his wife be beaten to death? If he and his family are harmed, their blood will be on the hands of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But the diplomatic difficulties in Beijing were not the worst to befall the Clintons in what must have been one of the worst weeks in their political lives. As Bill Clinton reveled in his role as “elder statesman” of the Democrat Party, the impeached former president was called upon to play a major role in a tasteless campaign ad in which Obama shamelessly “spiked the football,” taking personal credit for the killing of al-Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.
In the ad, Clinton is seen complimenting Obama for approving the military raid on the bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Then, looking straight into the camera, Clinton said, solemnly, “Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there, and it hadn’t been bin Laden. Suppose they’d been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him…”
The downside would have been horrible for Obama? What about the SEALS who put their lives on the line, and their superior officer, Admiral Bill McRaven, who put his long Navy career on the line? In Obama’s world, they were only secondary players in the drama. If the Obama ad is to be believed, the only real hero in the killing of Usama bin Laden was Barack Obama.
It is a political faux pas of major proportions and it will not soon be forgotten. If there is one event or one line of dialogue that Obama will remember as he slinks out of the White House on Jan. 20, 2013, it will be Bill Clinton’s words: “The downside would have been horrible for him…”
We may never know what was running through Clinton’s mind as he uttered those words. Was he fully aware that they could drive the final nail in the coffin of the Obama presidency? Did he relish the occasion as pay-back time for what had been done to Hillary? Whatever the truth of the matter, that simple 8-word sentence will forever be seen as a game-changer for both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. All in all, it was a very bad week in Clintonville.
This afternoon, I received an email from my friends at the Online News Association about a letter sent by the head of the Sunshine In Government Initiative to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. In short, the letter implores Solis to reconsider the implications of her agency’s new “Press Lock-Ups Policy, which could inhibit the quality, accuracy and independence of news reporting,” before it goes into effect June 15.
Read the text of the letter (below) and see if you think anything remotely worthwhile can come from this soon-to-be-implemented policy of restraining the press:
May 8, 2012
The Honorable Hilda Solis US Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210
Dear Secretary Solis:
As a coalition of media organizations promoting the free flow of information, we write to express our serious concerns regarding the new “U.S. Department of Labor Press Lock-ups Policy Statement and News Organization Agreement” that was issued on April 10, 2012. The new policy threatens to undermine the accurate, complete and timely dissemination of independently produced news. We urge the Labor Department (DOL) to reconsider and delay implementing this new policy, better explain the problem the Department is attempting to address, and engage affected parties and the public before implementing any changes to current practice.
Specifically, we would like to meet with Department representatives to better understand the Department’s concerns with current practice, discuss our concerns with the Department’s new approach, and explore reasonable alternatives that avoid unnecessarily infringing on journalists’ ability to independently report timely, accurate information to the public.
Formed in 2005, the Sunshine in Government Initiative is a coalition of media groups committed to promoting policies that ensure the government is accessible, accountable and open. Members include the American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Online News Association, Radio-Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Society of Professional Journalists.
For many years, media organizations have supported procedures to facilitate simultaneous release of sensitive government data that affect markets, and pre-embargo access is essential for media to disseminate information in a timely, accurate and independent manner. The public has benefited enormously from the process the Department currently uses. The practice used to this point ensures the simultaneous release of information while also providing time that enables reporters to place the new data in meaningful context. Distribution occurs through redundant, dedicated lines, assuring security and the timely release of information. This combination of simultaneous release, data placed in accurate context, and security is why other agencies of the U.S. Government which manage the release of market moving news use processes very similar to those currently used by DOL.
Under DOL’s new policy, however, participants would be required to remove their software, hardware, and dedicated lines from the DOL by June 15, 2012. Reporters would be required to use only government owned software and hardware. The use of modern news-producing software would be prohibited. All transmission would be via the internet, not via secure, redundant line. The DOL would own and operate the data lines, internet access and internet connections. As the government grows more concerned about cybersecurity, the proposed policy would create a single point of failure.
This new policy also would have the practical impact of inhibiting the quality, accuracy and independence of news reporting. Unpublished newsgathering information is privileged and protected from compelled disclosure under the First Amendment. Requiring news organizations to draft news articles on government-owned and government-operated computers would give the government unfettered access to unpublished draft news stories and will necessarily inhibit journalists from producing thorough, timely and accurate reporting based on market-moving information.
While the Department has alluded to alleged security breaches, the Labor Department has yet to explain its specific concerns this new policy proposes to address. The parties directly affected and the public cannot evaluate whether any change in procedure, including the new approach the Department announced, is appropriate to address the underlying problem.
We are committed to working with you to better understand any concerns about the current practice and explore reasonable, mutually acceptable solutions, and we would welcome a dialogue to better understand this problem and explore less drastic alternatives. Most immediately, we urge you to delay this policy change and meet with interested media representatives to discuss our concerns.
We thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Rick Blum, Coordinator Sunshine in Government Initiative
Copied: Senator Michael Enzi, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Jay Rockefeller, Congressman John Conyers, Congressman John Kline, Congressman George Miller, Congressman Lamar Smith, Congressman Fred Upton and Congressman Henry Waxman
I suspect this effort by the Obama Administration, via the Labor Department, is a dry run for efforts that will follow if little public outcry is heard. And if you think the news media is doing a bad enough job already, just wait until the government has its thumb press down even harder.
Following the story of Army Ranger 1LT Michael Behenna has been a long and winding process that, to date, has required more than 50 posts to explain. Today’s installment comes in the form of an update from his parents, Scott and Vicki Behenna:
To the thousands of Michael Behenna supporters,
Michael Behenna
Many of you have been asking about the hearing before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) that was held on April 23, 2012. While it is difficult to get a read on how the judges will ultimately rule, overall we felt good about it. The questions that the judges asked made it clear that they had thoroughly reviewed Michael’s case. In the first few minutes of Michael’s attorney’s narrative one Judge started a barrage of comments and questions that appeared to be against Michael’s position. But later the same Judge jumped all over the government counsel on the confusing jury instruction given by the trial judge concerning self-defense, at one point declaring “I’ve read the instructions about four times and it is very confusing …..and I’m a Judge of this court”; to which the government counsel admitted “Your honor, it is confusing.” Another judge backed the government counsel into a corner more than once and got him to concede that there was no evidence submitted at trial that Michael had ‘illegally’ assaulted Mansur in the culvert by pointing a weapon at him. We thought that was very positive. The Court has no timeline for returning a decision, but given that this court set the hearing so quickly we believe they will not take too long to render their decision.
May 18th will mark the fourth birthday Michael will spend behind bars in Ft. Leavenworth military prison. On that day Michael will turn 29 years old. While he will not have cake for this birthday he will have his family with him as well as his unwavering belief that justice has not abandoned him and that she will soon come to set him free. Despite all he has been through he remains hopeful that the civilian justices who preside on CAAF will come to a far different conclusion than the previous Army courts.
Michael’s hope is further encouraged by the many cards, letters and prayers that you have delivered to him these past several years of his imprisonment. There are days when Michael receives more mail than his entire pod (about 70 prisoners). Michael is not one to seek attention, but those cards and letters provide a significant inspiration and boost to his mental and spiritual being. Please remember him on his 29th birthday with a card, letter, or prayer as we need him to stay strong while we wait for the court’s decision. Remember that your letters to him do not need to be lengthy. Just let your heart tell you what to write to a warrior whose only mistake was that he cared too much for his men.
Letters and cards can be sent to Michael at:
Michael Behenna 87503 1300 N. Warehouse Road Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027-2304
Also, if you have not seen the YouTube version of The Ballad of Michael Behenna…. including pictures and video – check it out (above).
Thank you for your continued support for a hero we remain proud to call our son!!!
Clockwise from upper left: Michael's family; Michael; Michael as a youngster; and Michael and his girlfriend, Shannon.
Today’s message from the Behennas comes almost three years after I published Oklahoma Soldier Facing Miscarriage of Justice, my first piece about Michael’s wrongful conviction May 16, 2008. At the time, I didn’t know a lot about the details of the case. Four more posts followed.
Almost two and a half years ago, I publishedThe Michael Behenna Story: Getting Personal, the first in a nine-part series of guest posts authored by Carrie Fatigante. At this point, I began to understand the truth about this soldier, a fellow Oklahoman from Edmond, and the military justice nightmare in which he found himself. Sixteen more posts followed.
Finally, I shared more news in my March 28 post, Soldiers’ Hearings to Take Place Four Days Apart, which highlighted how appeal hearings for Behenna and Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart — another wrongfully-convicted soldier who became friends with Michael while both served prison time at Fort Leavenworth — were set to take place only days apart.
I try to limit my political reporting to topics impacting my state of residence, Missouri, and/or the nation as a whole, but I couldn’t resist a story taking shape a few hours north of St. Louis in Illinois. The long and the short of it goes like this: The differences between two candidates vying for the 36th District seat in the Illinois Senate could not be more stark.
The incumbent in the race is Mike Jacobs, a Democrat who is very familiar with the wheeling and dealing that goes on in and around the state capitol in Springfield. Jacobs comes from a long line of Democrats who’ve made their living on the taxpayers’ dime — or, according to his online biography, have carried on “a proud family tradition of public service.”
Among the family members who cashed government checks for decades were a great-uncle, a grandfather, a not-so-great uncle and his father, former State Senator Denny Jacobs, who bowed out of his last race after winning the primary only to pave the way for his son to be named his successor by the Illinois Democrat Party.
Jacobs’ bio notes that he is a former member and avid supporter of several Quad Cities-area unions and paints a portrait of a man who loves to throw more and more taxpayer dollars at education, regardless of the results.
Nowhere on his official biography, however, does one find any mention of a May 31, 2011, incident during which the legacy Democrat punched one of his GOP colleagues, Sen. Kyle McCarter (R-Lebanon, Ill.). Beginning at the 2:52 mark of the video below, a MyFoxChicago reporter provides details about what exactly [Hint: Think conflict of interest and shoe shines.] prompted the scuffle.
Aside from throwing punches on the floor of the Illinois Senate, it appears the Moline-area native has done little to distinguish himself from the political pack since he began collecting a state paycheck seven years ago.
Unlike his opponent in the 36th District race, Republican Bill Albracht has distinguished himself without ever having held political office, according to his online bio and other sources.
On Nov. 3, 1969, the front page headline of the Rock Island (Ill.) Argus spoke volumes about Army Capt. William L. “Bill” Albracht, a hometown boy who was dubbed a hero for his exploits as a 21-year-old Green Beret officer in Vietnam.
What did he do to earn the acclaim? According to numerous sources familiar with what took place near Bu Prang in the Republic of Vietnam from Oct. 28 through Nov. 2, 1969, he distinguished himself time and again by acts of bravery that went far above and beyond the call of duty.
Despite being surrounded, outgunned and vastly outnumbered by a North Vietnamese force comprised of multiple battalions, Captain Albracht and his men defended their remote jungle outpost, Fire Support Base Kate, around the clock for five days. Then, despite having been wounded early on during the siege, Captain Albracht led 150 men through the jungle, at night, to safety, losing only one man along the way in an effort certainly deserving of the Medal of Honor, though I could find no evidence that he had earned any such recognition.
After returning from Vietnam, Albracht began a long and distinguished career with the U.S. Secret Service that included serving on the detail that protected then-Vice President George H.W. Bush. After retiring, he also served as an executive with Ford.
Bill Albracht
Being retired, however, did not mean Albracht was idle. In addition to getting more involved in politics in recent years, Albracht also got involved in television.
Last year, he was selected by producers of a Discovery Channel series, Secret Service Secrets, as a person who depicted what can only be described as qualities that place him among “the best of the best” in that elite fraternity of men and women who, among other things, protect the lives of the president of the United States and other high-ranking government officials. That’s a far cry from what some of his modern-day successors at the Secret Service have done to make headlines recently.
Today, Albracht is back home, retired and ready to serve Quad Cities residents again — this time, in the Illinois Senate.
Vote wisely, Land of Lincoln! Your future depends on it!
UPDATE 5/9/12 at 2:19 p.m. Central: Someone using at a computer connected to a computer on the Illinois General Assembly network (IP: 12.43.67.50 , lis.ilga.gov) submitted a comment, cited an alleged incident in Bill Albracht’s past and then asked me a question using the following words verbatim: “…how you can claim Bill Albracht is a hero?” Using the email address provided, I attempted to contact the commenter but soon learned that the person had used a bogus email address. To the nameless commenter, I ask that you send me what you say is “proof” of your allegations. If they pan out, I’ll print ‘em.
For more than three years, those who love the U.S. Constitution and who respect the Rule of Law have debated endlessly the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president of the United States. Those who’ve studied the issue with an open mind are convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Obama, born to an American mother and a father of Kenyan/British citizenship, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
It is not unusual for liberals and Democrats to argue that the term “natural born Citizen” is undefined. This argument has been most recently advanced by Fox News anchor Bret Baier. It is an argument that fits neatly with the liberal view that the Constitution is a “living” document, meaning nothing more than what they would like it to mean on any given day. However, they ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
The facts of Minor v. Happersett are these: On Oct, 15, 1872, a woman named Virginia Minor… a white female resident of St. Louis County, Mo.,… attempted to register to vote in the November 1872 General Election. However, Missouri law in 1872 did not permit women to vote; women did not win the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.
Accordingly, when the St. Louis County voter registrar, Reese Happersett, refused to accept Minor’s registration, she filed suit in Missouri state courts, claiming voting rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment reads as follows:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.”
While the 14th Amendment would appear to protect a broad array of “privileges and immunities” for all citizens, regardless of gender, the Constitution of the State of Missouri stated that, “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”
In arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for Minor argued that:
As a citizen of the United States, Mrs. Minor was entitled to any and all “privileges and immunities” that are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States.
The right to vote is a “privilege” of citizenship; it is the means by which all citizens participate in their government.
The denial or abridgment of the right to vote must be sought only in the fundamental charter of government, the U.S. Constitution, and that no inferior power or jurisdiction (e.g., the State of Missouri) could legally claim the right to confer or deny it.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly declares that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
The provisions of the Missouri Constitution and registry laws are in conflict with and must yield to the higher authority of the Constitution of the United States.
As the case proceeded through the courts… the trial court, the Missouri Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court… all ruled in favor of the State of Missouri. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone,” and that the decision of who should be entitled to vote was left to the Congress and the state legislatures (in 1872, only the State of New Jersey allowed women to vote, and then only those women who were property owners). And although from the perspective of the early 21st century it appears logical to assume that the arguments of Minor’s attorneys would prevail, it was not on that basis that the courts decided the case.
In determining whether Minor had the right to vote, the Court first determined that she was a U.S. citizen because she was a member of the class of “natural-born” citizens. They then proceeded to define the term “natural born Citizen” by stating, “…(A)ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...”
In that differentiation, the Court established binding precedent, making it clear that persons born in the country, of parents (plural) who were citizens, are “natural-born” citizens. By implication, that finding would appear to established the corollary, which is that those born in the country to one or more parents who are not citizens, are not “natural born” citizens.
Those who support the notion of Obama and Florida Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s eligibility argue that, if one is at the time of birth, a U.S. citizen, then that person is also a natural-born citizen. That is false because it fails to take into account the nationality of the parents. All natural born citizens are “citizens,” but all citizens are not “natural born” citizens.
Baier’s entry into the debate was brought about by a flood of emails and correspondence complaining that certain Fox News anchors and contributors… Hannity, O’Reilly, Krauthammer, and others… have been promoting Rubio as the 2012 GOP candidate for vice president. This in spite of the fact that Rubio is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States (Rubio’s parents were citizens of Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until four years after he was born).
In support of his argument that Rubio is eligible to serve as president or vice president, Baier insists that the issue is resolved by federal law. He points to 8 USC § 1401, contending that all that is required for status as a “natural born” citizen is for the mother to be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of these years after the age of 14. Baier asserts that those born in the U.S., regardless of the nationality of the parents; those born outside the U.S. to parents who are both citizens, even those born outside the U.S. to one parent who is a U.S. citizen are all “natural born” U.S. citizens.
In refuting Baier’s assertion, constitutional law professor Herb Titus set the record straight. He said, “Under Mr. Baier’s view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law (emphasis added). If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baier claims they are, then by statute Congress can take away their natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship by birth. And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the Constitution…”
What Baer fails to understand is that “natural born” citizenship is inherent. It either exists or it does not. If a child is a natural born citizen at birth, it can never be taken away, and if a child is not a natural born citizen at birth… born to parents who are both U.S. citizens… it can never be acquired.
But what is most significant about Baier’s entry into the eligibility debate is not his opinion on the matter. It is the fact that a news anchor for the top cable news network in America… a network that claims to be engaged in a vetting of Obama, while studiously avoiding any mention of his background and experience prior to his days as a Chicago community organizer, a network which in recent months has taken a decided drift to the left… has finally chosen to comment on the Rubio eligibility question, suggesting that the issue merits a commitment by Fox to air a full debate on the issue.
But what is most significant about Baier’s entry into the eligibility debate is that any debate on the issue of Marco Rubio’s eligibility must, of necessity, include a discussion of Barack Obama’s eligibility. It cannot be avoided. That public discussion is at least four years overdue, and if Baer’s entry into the Marco Rubio debate is only a backdoor way of opening the debate on Barack Obama’s eligibility, then so be it.
