 |
| CMR Sitrep |
|
|
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Obama Proposes, Congress Disposes, and the Military Opposes
As with a lot of things coming out of the Obama Administration these days, the more questions that are asked, the worse its ideas look.
A month ago, in his State of the Union address, the President said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."
The President did not, however, offer any repeal legislation of his own. Not unlike another issue you may have heard about lately, health care, in which case only until today did the President provide his own legislative proposal. But Congress did not complain, and has gone to "work" to "repeal the law," to quote the President.
The early results cannot be impressive to the White House. After a week of annual defense budget hearings featuring the leaders of the four military services, Congress' idea for repealing the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service, (usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell") has been met with a resounding thud. The proposal, spearheaded by Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman Carl Levin, for a "moratorium" on discharges of gay personnel, met with considerable skepticism from the Committee's ranking member, Senator John McCain. Senator McCain led the way in strongly criticizing a "'moratorium'...before any decision is made. ...[I]t [a moratorium on homosexual discharges] flies in the face of what the Secretary of Defense committed to."
When asked his position on a moratorium by Chairman Levin, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, Jr., answered:
Senator, I would recommend against it. Aside from the legal issues that the [Secretary of the Army John McHugh] mentioned, it would complicate the whole process that Secretary Gates had laid out. We would be put in a position of actually implementing it while we were studying implementation.
The "process" Casey cites refers to a so-called "study" or "review" by the Pentagon, proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before SASC on February 2, 2010, on "implementation" of repeal. What General Casey came all around saying, but could not say directly as a leading official appearing before a co-equal branch of government, is that this "moratorium" proposal amounts to de facto repeal. As CMR President Elaine Donnelly has said, "by definition, a Defense Department task force producing a pre-determined paper on 'how' and not 'if' Congress should repeal the [law making homosexuals ineligible for military service] will not be an objective 'study.' And a 45-day search for excuses to suspend enforcement of the...law suggests that the Executive Branch can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. This is worse than pointless-it is irresponsible." And a moratorium, or suspension, of discharges while the so-called study proceeds has the same effect.
General Casey went on to say to Levin: "Chairman, this process is going to be difficult and -- and complicated enough. Anything that complicates it more I think I would be opposed to." He said much the same thing today to the House Armed Services Committee.
At that same hearing today, Army Secretary John McHugh said he was "strongly opposed to a moratorium," and noted that Secretary Gates had informed him of the Defense Department's opposition to a moratorium as well.
The House fared no better with the Department of the Navy. Yesterday, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead gave his personal view that he was in agreement in going forward with the review ordered by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He added that the review would survey "the force and families," and emphasized the importance of doing so. He also noted that focus should be on the United States military, "not another country's force---our force." He stated his view that a moratorium would be "confusing" to the force, concluding that he did not support it.
Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway said any review needs to focus on readiness, and stated that the "current construct [the law making homosexuals ineligible] supports that purpose," and that any consideration of the issue now should do the same. He agreed with the CNO on the moratorium, saying either "change the law or not, ...half measures will only be confusing in the end." In testimony before the Senate today, Gen. Conway stated that "unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics...and ask...do we somehow enhance the warfighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective. At this point...my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is."
The Air Force brass has had less to say, but only because it has been under less pressure. Their only appearance thus far in the annual congressional defense budget process has been before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), whose Chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, opposes repeal. Under questioning from HASC Ranking Member Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who asked General Norton Schwarz if he thought the law should be repealed, the Air Force Chief of Staff offered that with two wars going on, now is "not the time to perturb the force," and echoed CNO Roughead that information on military families was necessary before deciding on repeal.
As with the year-long efforts to close Gitmo and reform health care, this Administration seems to have a nasty habit of making big promises with no plan on how to deliver. In this case, lucky for the United States military. While people of good conscience may disagree on any array of other issues, the unity of our military experts opposing a moratorium on discharges of homosexuals, which amounts to de facto repeal of the law, cannot be ignored. These leaders have devoted lifetimes to the service of our nation and are ultimately responsible for lives affected by the policies they impose or Congress enacts. We ignore their sage wisdom at our national security peril.
--Tommy Sears
Military Secretaries, Chiefs Oppose "Moratorium" on Discharges of Gays
In testimony before Congress this week, leaders of the four military services were questioned on their personal and professional views regarding President Barack Obama's plan to repeal the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service. Their answers to questions from congressional leaders showed that they have not been persuaded by gay activists' arguments for open homosexuality in the United States armed forces. These leaders bear the ultimate responsibility for the consequences of such misguided proposals, giving their insights preponderant weight.
Senate
In a hearing with Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, Jr., Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan raised the prospect of a "moratorium," which would in effect halt discharges pending a so-called Pentagon "review" of how to repeal the law. Senator John McCain led the way in strongly criticizing a "'moratorium'"...before any decision is made. ...[I]t [a moratorium on homosexual discharges] flies in the face of what the Secretary of Defense committed to."
When questioned on their position on a moratorium on homosexual discharges, Secretary McHugh and General Casey offered serious reservations.
Secretary McHugh: "...[T]he preference would be we would not enact a moratorium."
General Casey was even more assertive in an exchange with Chairman Levin:
CASEY:
Senator, I would recommend against it [a moratorium]. Aside from the legal issues that the secretary mentioned, it would complicate the whole process that Secretary Gates had laid out. We would be put in a position of actually implementing it while we were studying implementation. And I don't think that would be prudent.
LEVIN:
If the moratorium were simply a moratorium---in other words, you're not implementing anything. You're just withholding discharges until that study is completed.
CASEY:
Chairman, this process is going to be difficult and---and complicated enough. Anything that complicates it more I think I would be opposed to.
House
While the Senate hearing was underway, the House was conducting its annual budget authorization hearing with Air Force leaders. Secretary Michael B. Donley and Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz testified before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC).
Under questioning from HASC Ranking Member Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who asked Gen. Schwarz if he thought the law should be repealed, the Air Force chief offered that with two wars going on, now is "not the time to perturb the force," and that information on military families was necessary before deciding on repeal.
Yesterday, the HASC held a similar hearing with Navy and Marine Corps leadership; Secretary Ray Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Gary Roughead, and Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway.
McKeon asked the Navy and USMC chiefs if the law should be repealed and
their views on a moratorium. Roughead gave his personal view that he was in agreement in going forward with the review ordered by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He added that the review would survey "the force and families," and emphasized the importance of doing so. He also noted that focus should be on the United States military, "not another country's force---our force." He stated his view that a moratorium would be "confusing" to the force, concluding that he did not support it.
Gen. Conway said any review needs to focus on readiness, and stated that the
"current construct [the law making homosexuals ineligible] supports that purpose," and that any consideration of the issue now should do the same. He agreed with the CNO on the moratorium, saying either "change the law or not,...half measures will only be confusing in the end."
In effect, the opposition to repeal from our country's top military leaders, the individual Service Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, illustrates that a "moratorium" would be nothing less than a thinly-veiled, de facto repeal. Senator McCain and Representative McKeon deserve high praise for exposing this back-door effort to make repeal a fait accompli, as well as do the Chiefs for their steadfast opposition in the face of congressional pressure to accept such a proposal.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Expert push-back on repeal of gays in military law
A wave of contrary analysis has emerged in opposition to the misguided plan proposed to Congress this week on the issue of gays in the military. On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed a proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee that would weaken enforcement of existing law, Sec. 654, Title 10, which makes homosexuals ineligible for military service, while also undertaking an internal Pentagon "study" aimed at implementing repeal of that law. Problem: The Pentagon doesn't get to make laws. That's Congress job, and Sec. 654, Title 10 is still on the books, as Senator McCain forcefully reminded the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, during the hearing. (You can see the video here. Use the video player's progress bar to fast forward to the approximately 204-minute mark). Senator McCain voiced his strong objection that their plan would not consider "whether the military prepares to [repeal the law], but how." Senator Sessions, another member of the Committee, strongly suggested that Gates' and Mullen's endorsement of repeal in effect compromised any study or review that their subordinates at the Pentagon might undertake.
With these events as backdrop, commentary from various sources was offered throughout the week:
Colonel David Bedey (US Army, ret.), a veteran of 30 years experience, explains in specific detail the problems with open homosexuality in the military and the broader gay-activist agenda behind it:
Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A Clear and Present Danger
Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and frequent national security issues commentator explains in the Washington Times why the Obama Administration effort to repeal the law will ultimately fail:
Obama Versus the All-Volunteer Military
Former Army Criminal Law Division chief and Virginia Assemblyman Richard Black exposes the fallacies of the gay-activists' arguments that open homosexuality in the military would not hurt discipline, and thereby overall readiness:
Danger to Discipline
William Kristol of the Weekly Standard asks why, of all the institutions that Americans question right now, is the Obama Administration targeting the one it trusts most, the United States military:
Don't Mess With Success
In this video, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council goes head-to-head with the executive director of the gay-activist Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization whose primary mission is repeal of the law, on MSNBC's Hardball:
Peter Sprigg on MSNBC's Hardball
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops
In their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee today, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not compromise principle by proposing an unworkable plan to undermine the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10). As reported by the Washington Post, the testimony that Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen are expected to deliver suggests an irresponsible plan that would incrementally eviscerate the law by unilaterally suspending its enforcement for specious reasons.
Such a plan would create an incentive for "third parties" to guarantee retention of gay partners in the military simply by identifying their partner as gay. Homosexuals would become a protected class under standards different from everyone else. This would constitute a clear violation of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, and establish a double standard that, in the name of "consistency," weakens discipline across the board.
Finding #9 in the law could not be more clear: "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." Finding #10 reads, "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."
Furthermore, Finding #13 clearly asserts: "The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service." There is nothing in the actual law that authorizes the institutional dishonesty inherent in Secretary Gates' and Adm. Mullen's reported plan to establish a double standard for homosexuals who are not eligible to serve in the military.
The Secretary of Defense does not get to choose which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not. Nor does he have the power to issue regulations that contradict the law, creating confusion and demoralizing the troops in order to help President Obama deliver on a political promise.
If the Defense Department excuses the behavior of personnel who show poor judgment by engaging in homosexual conduct revealed by others, there will be more misconduct, not less. This is a plan for officially condoned indiscipline, in violation of the clear language and intent of the law.
Background:
This article provides background on the genesis of Secretary Gates' peculiar comment about more "humane" ways to enforce the 1993 law:
Defining Discipline Down
In most cases, homosexuals reveal themselves to be gay, and they are honorably discharged. If credible information comes to the attention of military authorities, and there are no unusual circumstances that rebut the reasonable "presumption" of homosexual conduct, the person in question is subject to discharge, usually honorable. Anyone who engages in homosexual conduct is, by definition, not eligible to be in the armed forces.
President Obama is promoting a new "LGBT Law" for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces. A bill co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and more than 180 others, H.R. 1283, would forbid discrimination based on "homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." If passed, the law would be retroactive-allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged. The LGBT Law would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.
As stated in the statute itself, "There is no constitutional right to serve in the military." Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way.
There is no way that a Pentagon panel of any size can come up with a plan to make the LGBT agenda work with no negative effects on recruiting and retention, morale, and readiness in the military. CMR has prepared charts illustrating just how radical the new LGBT Law for the Military would be:
Consequences of the Proposed New "LGBT Law" for the Military
More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would "break the All-Volunteer Force."
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Lessons for Backers of Murphy's LGBT Law
The political earthquake that occurred on Tuesday, electing Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate, was more than the first election of a Republican senator from that state since 1972. At his victory party Senator-elect Brown drew national applause when he declared,
"Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax money should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."
This was not a "populist" sentiment. It was one of the clearest statements in support of a strong national defense that we have heard from a Republican candidate in a long time.
An obvious exception is retired Army Colonel Alan West, who is creating a sensation in his second run for Congress from the 22nd District in Florida. If you haven't seen this video of West in action, check it out:
Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West
The Massachusetts voters who calmly and cheerfully secured the "People's Seat" for Scott Brown are concerned about national security, and they don't want America's military to be used for any purpose other than national defense. In an article titled "It's the Enemy, Stupid," Andrew McCarthy of NRO quoted Scott Brown's top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign's internal polling showed "terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants" to be an even bigger issue than health care.
Will pro-defense members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, learn from this lesson?
It is a dangerous temptation to assume, that liberals and gay activists will retreat from the effort to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. The signs are encouraging, including post-election comments from U. S. Senate Democrats Evan Bayh (IN) and Jim Webb (VA), essentially warning their colleagues against continued political over-reaching. But the activists are not letting up.
CMR is nonpartisan and we don't endorse candidates, but voters and politically-active groups should ask every candidate for the Congress and U.S. Senate questions about their position on repeal of the 1993 law, which is constantly mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This includes every co-sponsor of HR 1283, Rep. Patrick Murphy's bill to impose a new LGBT Law on the military.
According to a survey done by the Massachusetts Family Institute, Scott Brown said that he supports "current armed forces policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military," while his rival Martha Coakley took the opposite position. (Brown and Coakley also disagreed on two more LGBT causes, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA.)
As the 2010 elections approach, questions of all candidates should focus on the Congress' findings regarding homosexuals in the military, as contained in the 1993 law and highlighted last week in a Washington Times op-ed by a respected former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Carl E. Mundy, Jr.
Maintain Military Gay Ban
As Gen. Mundy wrote, the law's findings remain valid and important for good order and high morale in the military. Our servicemen and women should not be forced to carry the burdens of a controversial, unprecedented social experiment that would weaken recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer force.
CMR issues such as this are essential elements in two legs of Ronald Reagan's famous three-legged stool. We look forward to working with candidates, elected officials, voters, opinion leaders, media, researchers, and members of the armed forces to build support for sound policies and priorities for the best military in the world.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Roadmaps for Railroading the Military
Gay activists who are trying to impose their radical agenda on the military are floating several "trial balloon" proposals to get their way despite strong opposition from military leaders and personnel, members of Congress, and the general public. The following are some of the most egregious bad ideas that media reports have revealed since October 2009:
1. Stifling Testimony from Military Leaders
The AP and the Washington Post reported on January 13 that Department of Defense lawyers are having second thoughts about the wisdom of repealing the 1993 law this year:
Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban
The article reported for the first time that House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) opposes repeal of the 1993 law, and The Hill reported additional details on January 15:
Skelton Opposes Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama spoke at a dinner sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) LGBT Left group in the country. Marching outside were even more radical homosexualists who demand that the president impose their San Francisco agenda on the men and women of our military. This article in the American Thinker analyzed the homosexualists' two-step plan to box-in military leaders with a pre-emptive presidential executive order suspending enforcement of the 1993 Eligibility Law:
Roadmap for Railroading the Military
2. Updated RAND Report: More Advocacy, Not Evidence
Given the Pentagon resistance noted above, it is not surprising that AP also reported that SASC Chairman Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) is pursuing an alternative plan. In order to repeat and reinforce false arguments for gays in the military, Levin has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to "task" the RAND Corporation to update the report on this subject that they did in 1993. This proposal is irresponsible for several reasons:
- Retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, now a Fox News contributor, completely discredited the 1993 RAND report at that time it was released because it was a typically biased, pre-determined pro-gays-in-the-military paper. Updating that polemic would be tantamount to bestowing defense dollars directly on gay activist groups, including the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center.
- RAND demonstrated its liberal bias as recently as November 2009, when it made a significant "in-kind" contribution to the cause by issuing a news release promoting a paper that the Palm Center had solicited from RAND employee Dr. Laura Miller. As we reported in the CMR SITREP, the news release noted that it was not an official RAND report, much less an objective "study," but the Boston Globe and other major newspapers publicized it as if it were.
3. Delayed-Effective-Date Ploy
Another very speculative idea heard through the grapevine suggests that legislation to repeal the 1993 law might postpone its effective date for a few years, going into effect whenever the troops come home from the war or the Secretary of Defense determines that it is "safe" to impose the LGBT Left agenda on our military men and women.
- This would be another cynical attempt to circumvent and incrementally repeal current law by refusing to enforce it. Such a plan would require the troops to be part of a social experiment in the midst of a war, while blurring responsibility for that action and postponing accountability until after the 2010 and 2012 elections.
- The Flag & General Officers for the Military statement opposes "any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law." The delayed-effective-date ploy certainly would be as bad, and perhaps worse, than repealing the law with immediate effect. There is no "good time" to weaken the culture of the military, and no one should fall into the trap of arguing that repeal safely can come later.
4. Short-Sighted Incrementalism
The new Secretary of the Army, former New York Congressman John McHugh, thoughtlessly suggested a completely unworkable way to manage results, not "if" the law is repealed, but "when" it is. Speaking in an interview on multiple topics with Army Times, McHugh suggested that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units, but barred from others.
- Secretary McHugh's absurd comment demonstrates Mr. Magoo-like short-sightedness. It also calls into question the judgment of Mr. McHugh, who previously served as Ranking Member of the House Armed Service Committee. Secretary McHugh (or unnamed others he was quoting) apparently has not thought of the reaction if gays in the military are not eligible for deployment in close combat units, Special Operations Forces, SEALS, and submarines, in the same way that HIV+ troops must be retained but cannot be deployed in any unit overseas.
- This tentative plan, a recipe for constant chaos and demoralizing resentment in the ranks, contradicts claims that the new LGBT Law will "enhance readiness" in the military.
For more information that discredits every flawed argument that has been made for passage of the proposed LGBT Law, please review the comprehensive array of articles posted elsewhere on this website, www.cmrlink.org.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Activist Groups Dissemble on Mislabeled "RAND Report"
On November 9 the Boston Globe and other major media misrepresented a private paper commissioned by the gay-activist Michael D. Palm Center as if it were a genuine research report of the RAND Corporation. This was not a RAND study; it was done by a RAND employee on her own time, together with an academic associate. The authors were Laura Miller, Ph.D., who is employed as a researcher at RAND, and Bonnie Moradi, Ph.D. of the University of Florida.
As noted in RAND's November 9 news release, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, commissioned the paper, which "was the product of a contract directly with the researchers and not through RAND." Survey results used for the study were from a four-year-old 2006 Zogby International Poll that also was commissioned by the Palm Center, a gay activist group formerly known as the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military." It remains unclear what the Palm Center's involvement, described as a "contract," was.
The Palm Center and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) nevertheless misdescribed the Miller/Moradi paper as a RAND report:
-Statement on Rep. Frank's Remarks to The Advocate on 2010 Repeal
Both organizations exaggerated "findings" that CMR analyzed in this article:
-RAND Lends Brand to Palm Center Polemic
CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears asked questions of the RAND Media Relations department, which tried to correct the situation. On RAND's request, the Palm Center changed the headline on their article promoting the Miller/Moradi paper slightly. But in an interview with National Public Radio in Connecticut, Nathaniel Frank of the Palm Center misrepresented the paper as "a new RAND Report."
RAND also contacted the SLDN, which replaced their original characterization of the Miller/Moradi paper as "a new survey by the RAND Corp." with a revision that remains misleading. The SLDN now describes the paper as "a new study by researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida and commissioned by the Palm Center."
This version still dissembles. Using the plural word "researchers" suggests a typical RAND team "study" rather than what the Miller/Moradi paper really is. The document was written by a single RAND employee, working without compensation on her own time, together with an associate at the University of Florida, reinterpreting four-year-old (not "new") information from a Zogby Poll paid for by the Palm Center.
Understanding that RAND was not professionally "commissioned" and their employee was not compensated, the SLDN's new iteration obfuscates nearly as much as before. The extent and nature of the Palm Center's involvement still is not clear. And as of this posting, the SLDN continues to refer to a non-existent "RAND study" in their website article linked above.
RAND is very careful about the use of its copyright and logo, and rightly so. Certainly the corporation does not want its name and reputation to be "borrowed" and misused to exaggerate the credibility of a private paper done for an outside activist group---especially one that is likely to misrepresent the document in congressional testimony and other public statements. Regardless of intent, the Palm Center benefited greatly from the RAND news release, which helped them to promote their cause under false pretenses.
This episode in the ongoing Gays in the Military Campaign, known as the GIMC, goes beyond public relations, or PR. When ideologues fabricate information to change public attitudes toward an issue, the proper term is "perception management," or PM, for short. Palm Center/SLDN Polemics continue to undermine the credibility of homosexualist groups that demand government power to impose their gay agenda on the military.
This is not the first time that the Palm Center has misrepresented "research" that cannot withstand close scrutiny. PM tactics such as this will not be enough to persuade Congress to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sitrep Archives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
Sitrep Blog