Tips Guides Resources

The Navy Reserve expects to mobilize sailors in the near future, according to briefing documents obtained by Navy Times and confirmed by Vice Adm. John G. Cotton, chief of the Navy Reserve. That figure means that nearly one in three available reservists, not counting those who have already been mobilized and and those listed as not deployable for medical, dental, or other administrative reasons, will mobilize during the next year for deployments ranging from six months to more than one year.

Cotton said he does not believe the rate of mobilizations will exhaust the pool of available reservists; that is because the Navy Reserve’s 26 percent yearly turnover creates a fresh supply of deployable sailors every year, according to Capt. David J. Wray, spokesman for the Navy Reserve. But most new reservists are prior-service sailors who enter from the active component as already deployable assets. Such sailors who have deployed within their last 12 months on active duty can ask that mobilizations be put off for their first year in the Navy Reserve.

As of Oct. 31, 2006 there were 71,300 people serving in the selected reserve, according to Cotton. Cotton said the number of reservists who will be contacted for possible mobilization will be higher than 9,300. That’s because Navy officials have found that as many as 40 percent of reservists contacted for recent mobilizations could not deploy, despite being listed as deployable by their units.

Cotton said the exact number of reservists who can expect a mobilization call next year is unknown because it is difficult to predict precisely how many sailors who are called will be determined to be deployable.

The Navy Reserve had been authorized by Congress to have more mobilized reservists throughout the year, a number that does not include a smaller number of reservists who count against active-duty billets or who have been mobilized for 30-day operational deployments to fulfill their annual drilling requirements.

The number Congress has specifically authorized for the Navy Reserve to bring sailors on full time but not have them count against the active-duty end strength is high. In the past, the Navy had to do a juggling act to ensure the number of activated reservists did not put the Navy over the end strength authorized by Congress.

Cotton said he anticipated keeping no more than a certain number of reservists mobilized at any given time during the next 12 months. Instead of driving back and forth for a Monthly Coffee and Donut Drill you will do 1 year’s worth of 24 Drills and throws in the 2 weeks at in one shot. Sounds like a Good Plan but I don’t see Reserve units having to deal with Reservists around More. Also I Just hope it’s used for getting people Actually Trained and Qualified instead of an extended Annual Training Stint. Aviation Squadrons actually have enough Admin and Maint duties to worry about a reservist that is going to be gone in a few weeks.

For most selres units it will be extremely difficult to do an extended block once a year. The training would/could be a lot better, but the important thing with the Navy is the admin part. I live 150 miles from my NOSC and drill off site at an army base. There are at least 4-6 trips a year to the NOSC for admin, medical, page 2 updates, and on and on. As for the mobilized personnel, will most be IA’s? I know the battalions, EST’s, and some other entire units are deploying but I don’t see that many personnel in a few Bee battalions.

Victor Epand is an expert consultant for http://www.WarGear.info/. WarGear.info carries the best selection of military clothing, war gear, and combat accessories on the market.

“If you love proven money-making strategies — then wow! You’ll love this what I learned from this book, it’s called, “The Power of the Vote.”

It’s written by Douglas Schoen, and it’s especially empowering in an area that is so important, but often so misunderstood — Politics!

If you say, “Politics aren’t for me,” then you’re in for a surprise!

Business people and entrepreneurs should not ignore politics, because there is one element of politics that is absolutely ESSENTIAL to success…and that is Polling.

There is “money-making power” in the ability to listen to your customers, because THEY ARE YOUR VOTERS. Finding out what they want and then giving it to them is like millionaire magic.

The techniques and tactics of political polling are relevant in almost every industry.

Behind the carefully crafted speeches and professionally edited commercials, is a political campaign strategist who above all knows what it takes to win the hearts and minds of voters.

In the last few decades, technology has brought about a huge shift in the tools available to such strategists, transforming their jobs and increasing their effectiveness.

Few people understand this better than Douglas E. Schoen, political strategist, and author of “The Power of the Vote.”

Schoen writes, “It is my job to understand and explain what voters are thinking…Public opinion research gives me the tools to do that.”

Public opinion research, or polling, is more than just a simple gauge of public support for one side or another. Polling is how politicians connect with their constituents to find out what issues and values are most important to them.

Advances in computers mean that instead of having to analyze a poll for days to get meaningful information, the results are now available almost as soon as the last of the
responses is recorded.

This allows people like Doug Schoen to continually keep abreast of how the public is reacting to any campaign. As he explains it, “Instead of simply setting strategy at
the beginning of a campaign, polls [can] now be used to evaluate tactics and determining the campaign’s message and strategy on a day-by-day basis.”

Business leader and Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, said, “He’s [Doug Schoen] played a defining role in hundreds of political campaigns, and this book reveals the
inside story of how he does it. I recommend it to anyone who’s interested seeing how sophisticated, state-of-the-art political campaigns work.”

According to Schoen, a campaign can now literally “commission a poll in the morning, have the results by that night, and come up with a new strategy by the following morning.” But conducting a useful poll and actually making that information useful are two very different tasks.

Before you can get useful data, you have to ask good questions. This means that first of all, your questions must be understandable for people, even if they don’t have much education.

Next, you need to ask questions that will test your marketing messages. And last, you have to give people real choices. Schoen says, “If you just ask people whether they
like famine and poverty, of course people are going to say they don’t. On the other hand, are they willing to pay higher taxes for programs that will help the poor?”

Doug Schoen tells how polling helped AOL circumvent a customer relations disaster and achieve previously unparalleled success by advising founder Steve Case to capitalize on his personal appeal, publicly acknowledge AOL’s shortcomings, and present a new plan to upgrade the quality of their network.

Polling also helped craft one of the most effective marketing campaigns in American corporate history for the launch of Eli Lilly’s anti-depression drug Prozac.

But according to Schoen, a good poll goes beyond just asking the right questions. “The key to meaningful results,” he explains, “is having the proper analytical framework with which to interpret the numbers.” In order to do that, you need to know something about the people giving you your responses. Even beyond getting their opinion, you need to learn who they are, whether or not they’re likely voters, what their values are and how
strongly they hold them.

Schoen writes that “Ultimately, polling isn’t about predicting what will happen. It’s about trying to determine what you need to say in your communications to get voters to react the way you want them to.” In democracies around the world, polling has become a vital tool for any politician that seeks to harness the power of the vote.

This book is the ONLY book available to help you understand the power of polling from person recognized as being the father of modern polling.

Dr. Proactive a.k.a. “Randy Gilbert” enjoys producing “Inside Success Radio” where he interviewed Doug Schoen about his proactive approach to politics. Doug is providing updates on Campaign ‘08, along with the real un-spun polling numbers, and behind-the-scenes insights.
ThePowerOfTheVote.com

Singapore is a conservative country, its government repeated many times when the subject of its gay sex law is being discussed. The government explained that because of conservative population, it will not decriminalize the country’s gay sex law or at least not in the near future.

On April 12, 2007, Singapore Law Society tells the government that the retention of gay sex laws cannot be justified. The existing gay sex law with comments are as follows:

Singapore Penal code section 377 states that - Whosoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to a fine.

Comments - The term ‘unnatural sex’ has been settled by Singapore courts as to mean sodomy and oral sex. So if the penis goes into another person’s anus or mouth, this clause will apply, even if both are adults and consenting. This could also mean that a heterosexual couple engaging in oral or anal sex may also be committing a criminal act.

377(A) of the same penal code went on to state that - Any male person who, in public or private, commits or abets the commission of or procures the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

This clause is unique in that it specifically applies to gay men only and not to women or lesbians. The term ‘Gross indecency’ is a wide term which, from past legal precedents, covers mutual masturbation, indecent physical contact to the groin, or even indecent behavior without physical contact. Again the law applies even if the acts are done between consenting adults, and whether or not the act was committed in private.

Is Singapore’s gay sex law to archaic and needs to be repealed? The Singapore Law Society certainly thinks so when it wrote to the government to review and to make changes to the existing penal codes. It released a statement disagreeing with the Ministry of Home Affair’s proposal to retain the country’s laws against gay sex. Here is excerpts from some published reports:

The Law Society of Singapore, at the invitation of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) last November to comment on the government’s proposed amendments to the Penal Code has advised the government that the retention of s.377A in its present form cannot be justified.

Last November, MHA announced their intention to retain gay sex laws although laws which criminalize anal and oral sex between consenting heterosexual adults will be repealed as part of Singapore’s first major penal code amendments in 22 years.

Section 377A currently makes ‘gross indecency’ between two males an offence punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. The Law Society, the professional association of lawyers in Singapore, which formed an ad hoc committee of 16 members to study the matter has issued a report that stated that the majority of the Council considered that the retention of section 377A in its present form cannot be justified.

This does not entail any view that homosexuality is morally acceptable, but follows instead from the separation of law and morals and the philosophy that the criminal law’s proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct.

Private consensual homosexual conduct between adults does not cause harm recognizable by the criminal law. Thus, regardless of one’s personal view of the morality or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence.

Moreover, the assurance given by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Explanatory Notes to Proposed Amendments to the Penal Code that were initially issued by MHA that prosecutions will not be proactively prosecuted under this section is an admission that the section is out of step with the modern world.

The retention of un-prosecuted offences on the statute book runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute. The council also recognized that the above view did not necessarily represent the views of its members collectively. A significant minority of Council members as well as members of the Law Society at large has an opposing view, which strongly supports the retention of section 377A gay sex law of the Singapore Penal Code.

They took the view that the criminal law can and should be deployed to define what the majority or a significant proportion of society believe to be unacceptable conduct even when it takes place in private between consenting adults, and that there are sufficient jurisprudential and logical grounds for this. Differing views were expressed on the constitutionality of section 377A.

In other jurisdictions, legal discrimination based on sexual orientation has been considered against constitutional guarantees of equal protection. The council did not come to a concluded view on the constitutionality of section 377.

So in this country, engaging in gay sex is a criminal offence with imprisonment as a form of punishment, at least for the time being until the penal code is revised.

Chris Chew is a researcher. More articles at
Attorneys and lawyers and Law Degree

Seems Iraq is not a “popular war”. Which basically means that because we aren’t full-out winning the war by the time the nightly news stops for a commercial break, people think twice about it?

And as of recently, I’ve been seeing many people make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. (Especially from the criminals in D.C. who’re using the unpopular war opinion to further their own political careers)
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska warned that President Bush’s new plan to send in more troops would be “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.”

Well if protecting ourselves from the reaches of Communism (Vietnam), and from the fanatical evil of terrorism and religious nuts (Iraq) takes some third world hell hole to be completely annihilated and remade in the vision of an actual civilization, then so be it.

Our soldiers have a job to do. A job that they signed up for out of their own free will and sense of patriotism. If their commander in chief says “go protect us”, then our elected representatives should not quibble and squawk like a bunch of washerwomen arguing over the dirty laundry.

Those troops are being sent over for a reason. And that reason is that we can’t decisively win this war and change those goat screwing jerks that are shooting at our soldiers with electronics, smart bombs, or diplomatic hippy talk. Man to man, room to room, close quarters combat. That is how we’re going to change that god-forsaken cesspool.

Listen, GWB sure as hell isn’t perfect, but to see that he’s doing the right thing now simply takes a look back at the Vietnam War. And one man in particularly…John Paul Vann

Lt Col Vann would return to the United States after serving his time in Korea and would have a typical career until he headed to Vietnam in 1962 as an advisor. Vann came to Vietnam with every intention of winning the war, but soon found nothing but problems.
The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and tried to avoid causalities while the United States military bombed areas all over the country killing civilian and guerilla alike. Vann knew by bombing these areas more local people would take the side of the Viet Cong. (Sound familiar?)

His approach was to engage the enemy in close combat, because by doing so would not risk any unnecessary deaths of civilians. It made for tough, slow fighting results, but it worked. And more importantly, it let the local people see that the war was against the enemy and not them personally, and resulted in rallying local support.

Unfortunately, like most men of action, Van was critical of those in charge and gave his full, unedited, and truthful opinion to the press. This quickly lead to Vann losing his position, and later leaving the military. But the fight wasn’t over for Vann as he returned as civilian advisor working with both American and Vietnamese personnel and inspiring them with his “lead by example” attitude.

When asked about his tactics Vann said, “This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I’m afraid we can’t do it that way. The worst is an airplane. The next worst is artillery. Barring a knife, the best is a rifle - you know who you’re killing.”

Vann would continue to lead forces to victory even after the United States began to pull out, but was killed in action when his helicopter crashed.
President Nixon awarded him the Medal of Freedom after his death, but sadly, Vann’s name cannot be found on the Vietnam Memorial with the other heroic men and women who died trying win an unpopular (but necessary) war that the liberal constitute of society used to further their own selfish positions.

This “getting close to make a difference” affects you too I hope you know.

While our soldiers are over in the sandbox doing their duty, they fully expect you to do yours while they are away. And that means preserving the freedom and way of life they left to go protect.

When you see someone being wronged…say something directly to the person doing the “wrong”. When you see the weak being, preyed upon…target the “predator” directly and make him see the error of his ways. Bitching and moaning to a general audience or your peers (like those liberal pussies in the Senate) does nothing but spread confusing messages and diluted truths. We are in a fight so let’s do what we have to win it.

For more information on Chris “Lt. X” Pizzo former soldier, cancer survivor, mercenary, barroom bouncer, educator, and hand-to-hand combat instructor, and his incredible FREE Accelerated Battlefield Combatives close-combat learning system, visit http://www.TopSecretTraining.com

Later this month the Republican presidential candidates will participate in debate in Colombia, South Carolina. This debate will allow Americans to see and hear what each candidate brings to the Presidential table. Perhaps there will be a leader who comes out of this debate as a favorite. Or there may just be what the Democrats have offered, which is nothing but fax-blast talking points with little honest substance. We hope someone stands out and that person must deliver answers which lock-step with true Conservatism. One of the most important of all points of debate should be addressing the American Income Tax system.

Ironically, the Fair Tax supporters are also having a rally directly across the street from the GOP debate, and on the same night. This is an intentional rally directed at the Republican presidential candidates. The Fair Tax supporters would very much like to hear what these candidates think about HR-25/S-1025, the Fair Tax Plan. Especially when several candidates have been quoted as saying about the Fair Tax, From what I understand, it is promising, but.

From what I understand, means that they have not taken the initiative to either read the plan or book. They have not felt compelled enough to ask any of the growing millions of supporters any questions about the Bill. Nor have they seen the political advantage of promoting the Fair Tax as a highly valuable campaign tool. You see, no-one in their right mind enjoys paying income taxes. Yet just about everyone loves spending their hard earned money on things they want.

With the current ever-changing tax monster, we are all finding it harder and harder to afford the things in life we desire. Even more trying will be the coming increase of $400 billion in higher taxes forced upon us by the newly formed Democrat representative majority. Even the Democrats understand that Conservative values win elections. However, as we are beginning to see, their values have changed since they have taken charge. Which is why the GOP presidential candidates need to know what the Fair Tax represents to the future of America.

All they have to do is ask questions, and read the Bill, the book or even the supporting information on the National Fair Tax website. Learn what the Plan will do, and be ready to stand behind one of the top Conservative ideals ever; no more income taxes. Become the leader of the Fair Tax drive and you will find millions following you to the polls. If you want the short track to the Whitehouse, get behind and push the Fair Tax Plan out into the American political spotlight.

I am willing to suggest that since your debate is right across the street from the Fair Tax rally, why not step across the road and see for yourself what millions are already supporting? I will bet you that if you inform the Fair Tax people that you want to attend the rally after the debate, they would be more than willing to wait for you to arrive. As I also guarantee you that when you walk in the door you would be given a much more supportive round of applause than you have ever experienced anywhere in your career. That is because all of those who come are willing to see for themselves what America truly desires in our taxes.

You will also find that not all are these Fair Tax supporters are just Republicans. In attendance you are going to see Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians there as well as CPAs and even IRS personnel, and they are all there trying to help each other teach the American public and politicians about the Fair Tax. Again, the candidate who steps up and makes the Fair Tax a primary election issue is the one who will doubtlessly earn the votes of these supporters and those to come in the future.

If you are truly dedicated to becoming the President of the United States then you have to be a trendsetter and not a follower. Be the leader and come to the Fair Tax rally after your debate. I am willing to bet that we will even have better refreshments.

John DeJong is the lead creative designer for NotMeUSA. He has been writing humorous advertisements for over twenty-five years. All of the funny t-shirts, prescription pill bottles, and gag spray bottles were created by him. You can view these by visiting NotMeUSA.com

Commentators often speak of hate of the U.S. as though it were a passing fad, a media creation engendered by the deliberate sensationalism of a few. The truth is that often our actions seem to connect the invisible dots of seemingly disparate points into a line drawn in the figurative sand which we then dare others to cross.

The laws we pass and policies we follow have ramification beyond our own borders, and it is important to understand that adopting an us vs. them mentality may help foster a strong sense of patriotism and pride.

What does this have to do with terrorism? A great, unfortunately. In the past three years, ideal global support for the U.S. led war on terror, has steadily declined. Global opposition to the war on Iraq.

Much of what drives the deepening resentment around the world is the common perception that the United States determines its foreign policy with complete disregard for other countries national interests.

Whether its true or not, even our Western allies apparently consider the U.S. a self-serving actor.

Growing evidence shows that U.S. foreign policies influence and military bases in other countries have fueled the terrorist fervor of religious extremist groups, particularly the Islamic fundamentalist groups such as Al Qaeda.

Terrorism is a scourge that has no place in the civilized world, and rightly should be repudiated and eradicated wherever it take form. The question is how to remain true to our nation ideals of democracy.

Terrorism is nothing new, and certainly U.S. policies do not cause terrorism in the strictest sense of the word.

There have been centuries of people whose ideologies enable them to justify to themselves the most heinous of acts against complete strangers,like Al Qaeda.

Fighting against terrorism is made all the more difficult by the fact that there is no simple answer to the glaring question. The search for root causes is apparently futile, because there are many factors that contribute to the root causes of terrorism.

The frightening realization that the average terrorist is, in almost every war, as normal as your next-door neighbor sane, sober and increasingly sophisticated makes counterterrorism a formidable task.

Occasionally a theory will emerge that the media cause terrorism, purely because terrorism thrives on the coverage. Since terrorism feeds on publicity, the increasing vivid and on the spot media coverage of attacks further fans the flames.

However, increasingly media-savvy terrorist have learned how they can leverage media coverage of their mayhem into recruitment campaigns.

The tendency of people, including the media, to rally round the flag can mask the complete truth about important issues, with television, newspaper and radio journalists too often abandoning their watchdog roles to avid accusations of being unpatriotic.

A common misperception is that the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups hate the West for its freedoms. Take a look at how some of those freedoms are faring in wake of September 11 attacks on American soil, like theUSA-Patriot Act.

In times of threat or upheaval, the U.S. Congress has reacted by passing legislation that restricts the civil liberties of all Americans in a misguided attempt to the curtail the suspect activities of a few. Historically the U.S. Supreme Court system has overturned these reactionary abridements.

Leon Newton is Professor of Political Science and teach terrorism and International Relations. He is the author of the book, Terrorism 101 A Library Reference And Selected Annotated Bibliography. http://outskirtspress.com/terrorism101