Benderman Defense Trust

 There seems to be some controversy surrounding the congress’ decision to finally do what they are constitutionally responsible to do, which is to make the rules for government and to regulate the land and naval forces of the United States.

  I will show below the section of the constitution which states as much in article 1, section 8;

 Section 8 - Powers of Congress To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 To provide and maintain a Navy;

 To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 I know that some people will say, “But the president is the Commander in Chief”. And they are correct but this is the case only after congress declares war and he is still to follow the laws of the constitution and the rules that congress sets forth in the execution of the duties of the CINC.

 Others may say, “What about the War Powers Resolution of 1973”? This is an emergency provision allowed to the president to answer the immediate danger to our country and he has 90 days to deploy soldiers while congress is convened to declare the necessity to utilize the forces past the 90 day allowance.

 War Powers Resolution of 1973

  Public Law 93-148 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 November 7, 1973 Joint Resolution Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President. Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

 REPORTING SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-- (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. (b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad (c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a) (1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

 (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

I have to laugh when I hear people saying that congress is micro-managing the war when they are doing their job in the manner the constitution requires. To hear of such non-sense is absurd if you go back to when General Eric Shinseki said it would take 350,000 thousand service members to properly conduct the war on Iraq and he was fired for saying so.

 The so called expert secretary of defense said it would only take 150,000 and you see just how incompetent he was now, don’t you? Also the “troop surge” proponents are crowing about how wise their decision was to send 50,000 more and about how effective it is being. Why, then, are they able to drop rockets onto the Prime Minister of Iraq when he is giving a press conference to announce how successful the surge has been?

 Also the deputy P.M. was blown up by one of his very own security detail in a suicide bomb attack. All of this is in the GREEN ZONE where there cannot possibly be anything like this happening because the troop surge is so effective.

No, this is not effective and it never has been. It cannot be because the vast majority of the American service members  in Iraq are trained to fight a conventional type battle and not the type which is being fought. This is a guerilla war and you cannot use a military that spends all of its time training to fight armor on armor war.

 There are no classic battle lines to fight here and that is what the army trains for. I have been to the National Training Center in California a few times in my military life and there are no provisions being taught on how to handle this type of war.

We did get a small amount of what is known as M.O.U.T training at Ft. Stewart, Ga. But this only covered the clearing of buildings in an urban environment but there was no training on how to spot a terrorist in sheep’s clothing if you understand what I mean by that.

Maybe socom guys get that type of training but the regular forces do not. I think congress has finally found enough spine to do what it should have been doing all along, which is to ensure that the war is being conducted under the laws of the nation and not just giving a blank check to people to do what ever they wanted.

We have all seen the stories about what is wrong with the way the soldiers are being treated that are coming back from Iraq. We all know the mis-guided reasoning behind starting this war. We have seen this administration do more to destroy our constitution than any other administration in the history of this country.  I will not go into all of those details now because we are all well versed in them.

What I do want to go into are solutions; solutions that will, I believe, start to fix some of the problems that we are facing in this country. Monica and I have been developing a plan to solve some of the problems that service members are being confronted with and have been for some time.

We all know of a vet who has had some kind of a hassle from either the V.A. or their particular branch of service in getting help with their medical problems, their mental and emotional problems, and their re-adjustment back to their life after their combat experience.

The plan we feel will do for service members is one that will give them a positive chance to get back to normal as much as possible, it is one that will involve members of communities while minimizing reliance on government to solve problems they cannot fix.

The vision we have is one that will bridge the gap between service members and communities while, hopefully, revitalizing small towns that have been left to rot in this country’s rush to become more urbanized. What we want to do is bring veterans and the community together in a program that will rely on the American people working with the veterans to overcome the idea that government can solve all of our problems.

We will need everyone’s assistance in getting this project off the ground and into a working program that will benefit veterans and communities alike. We want to bring job training to vets that will allow them to re-integrate into society with a minimum of difficulty. Monica and I feel that by connecting the gap between the communities and the vets will help them not feel abandoned which will lower the possibilities of drug and alcohol addiction that trouble many returning war veterans.

We believe that in the midst of the all of the negatives out there we should be focusing on positive solutions instead of actions that do nothing for anyone. If you would like more information concerning the program we want to establish, contact me at kevbdrmn2@coastalnow.net or Monica at mdawnb@coastalnow.net and we will discuss this with people who are genuinely ready and willing to help.

 The news coming from the Walter Reed story is much more prevalent and wider reaching than most people realize. This is not the way anyone should be treated much less veterans coming back from a war that was started based on lies and false statements by people who are out only to fulfill their own agenda.

 I would like to relate to you a story about a young soldier I served with at Ft. Stewart, Georgia. This young soldier served a tour of combat in the initial invasion of Iraq and upon his return started experiencing severe post traumatic stress syndrome. The stress got to the point where he attempted suicide by taking 32 percocet tablets and as a result of this attempt he was taken to the Liberty County Regional Medical Center.

 The command of the 2-7 Infantry Battalion upon learning of the soldiers whereabouts promptly forced the med-cen to release him to the commanders custody. This was done against the professional medical judgement of the staff at the medical center. The soldier was transferred to the Winn Army hospital on Ft. Stewart where you would think he would receive the proper treatment for his PTSD.

 The commander of this soldier's company would have none of that, he promptly went to the soldiers hospital room and physically forced the soldier's wife from the room and began to scream at this young soldier, telling him that if he did not get up and deploy to Iraq for a second tour and to stop faking his pyschological problems he would ensure that he was sent to Iraq in leg irons, handcuffs and in his hospital pajamas.

 This young soldier contacted me in the capacity of and NCO and asked if could help him. I proceeded to attempt to file an Inspector General report about the way the command was treating this young soldier and was promptly given the brush-off. I can relate many more stories of this nature from soldiers at Ft. Stewart which goes to show that the problem that came to light at Walter Reed is more wide-spread than most people realize.

 I am glad this information was published by the Washington Post and the reporters who had the intestinal fortitude to put this info out. But what makes me a little angry is that when I was trying to go through the military channels to try and address similar problems at Ft. Stewart I was brushed off by the command. I even talked the division command sergeant major and informed him of some these problems and as a result I was brought up on false charges of desertion and missing movement by a command that was incompetent and corrupt.

 There was a Captain in the intelligence section of the battalion, (2-7 Infantry), who was selling the ceramic body armor plates on e-bay and pocketing the money. Those plates go into the new vests that were purchased for soldiers in order for them to receive the most protection possible. This CPT was caught and he received 45 days confinement and was allowed to resign his commission.  I believe this constitutes endangering soldiers lives who are in combat without the plates he sold for personal gain.

 The reason I received the sentence I did was because the prosecution said I was endangering soldiers by applying for conscientious objector status to war and by not being there I was depriving them of experienced leadership in a combat zone. But I have to ask, which do you think is more dangerous to soldiers? My applying for C.O. status or a greedy commisioned officer selling safety equipment for personal gain. You will have to make up your own mind about that. I know where I stand on that matter. You can also verify what I am saying by using the Freedom of Information Act to view his record of "trial". I want you to do so and not just take my word for that.

 This Walter Reed story is just the tip of the ice-berg and now the politicians are coming out of the wood work trying to seem like they are so concerned by this. I have to ask, "Why didn't they see that this was not allowed to be the case in the first place instead of scurrying around like rats after the fact?"

 We the people are placing entirely too much stock in the government. We seem to expect them to do everything or we hold them to a standard they cannot possibly achieve because, after all, they are only humans like the rest of us. They do not have a God given mandate to rule the world with unfailing attention and only the highest moral ground in mind. No, they are only hired workers with the instructions to do the best job they can. We the people like to gripe about the government not doing what we want but I think we have given too much of our responsibility over to them.

 I heard a story on NPR yesterday which talked about the earthquake that struck South Carolina in 1803. This earthquake leveled much of the town but there were no FEMA's or national relief agencies. There was nothing set up in federal government to help out states to rebuild after something like that happened but you know what? The people of the Charleston area got up and the mayor got up with them and money started coming in to the city from around the country to help rebuild the city. It got to the point where the mayor had to put an appeal out in the nation's newspapers to stop sending funds because they had received more than enough to rebuild.

 Those people did all of this without any help from any federal agency because they did not exist. They stood up and fixed their city themselves. I want to know how we have gone from a nation of people with that type of attitude to do things for themselves to one of a nation of people who think the government should do everything for us. It is really sad to see this nation of people who came from pioneers and others who had to face much more difficult situations than we do today turn into a nation that thinks we have to have the government do everything for us because we are helpless babies who need out diapers changed and our hands held.

 As we have seen in recent years the government can't do this for us because they can't even get their own house in order, look at Walter Reed Medical Center where they had wounded service members living in a rat infested swamp of a building. It is a hell of a way to treat wounded combat veterans who have lost legs, arms and much of their blood to do what is asked of them.

 I think we need to start taking the government out of the equation when it comes to doing the right thing for the people and the people need to start looking more to themselves and their families and communities to do for themselves. If we expect the government to to everything for us then we cannot complain when they start telling us how to run our personal lives because we let them in. We need to focus on the things we need to do for ourselves and we need to get the government to focus on what the constitution allows them to do. Which is a whole lot less than they are currently doing.

 But until we start getting enough backbone to take back our personal responsibility from the government we can only expect it to keep growing more and more out of control.

So how about it America, are we going to stand together to fix what we need to fix, or are we going to continue to grovel at the feet of our caretakers because we can't or won't do for ourselves?