John R. Houk
© January 20, 2017
You should be aware that the Obama Administration has taken a hard line toward military servicemen from private to general for minor infractions, made-up infractions or policy direction opposite to the worst President in U.S. history.
Sgt. Gary Stein
The Marine sergeant facing discharge because of critical comments about President Obama says the board that recommended his dismissal ignored the law and instead relied on “personal opinion.”
Stein, 26, a nine-year veteran including deployment to Iraq, had been recommended for dismissal and an other-than-honorable discharge by his commander for comments posted on four Facebook pages.
In his postings, Stein called Obama a coward and an enemy, vowed not to salute him and called for his defeat in this year’s election. One of the websites was an Armed Forces Tea Party page on Facebook that was created by Stein. –READ ENTIRETY (Marine who criticized Obama says hearing board ignored law; Posted by NewsEditor; USIF.net; 4/11/12)
Lt. Michael Behenna
On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation and Army intelligence believed he organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.
During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.
Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. – READ ENTIRETY (MILITARY PROSECUTORS WITHHOLD EVIDENCE; ARMY RANGER GOES TO PRISON FOR 25 YEARS FOR SHOOTING AL QAEDA OPERATIVE; DefendMichael.com)
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal
McKiernan was succeeded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was in turn assigned to undertake his own 60-day assessment. But when word spread that McChrystal intended to propose a substantial new increase in forces, which Pentagon gossip initially put as high as 80,000 additional troops, waves of dismay spread through the White House. In late September 2009, a copy of McChrystal’s assessment was leaked to the Washington Post. Its bottom line was clear: If the United States did not pour significant additional resources into Afghanistan, and fast, the likely result would be “mission failure.”
… Furious at the leak—which they blamed on the Pentagon—and reluctant to accept McChrystal’s grim conclusions, senior White House aides engaged in strategic counter-leaks. In their version, McChrystal and the Pentagon were trying to box in the president by pushing to deploy tens of thousands more troops and refusing to consider other approaches.
… And less than a year later, McChrystal was forced to resign after a Rolling Stone profile quoted his top military aides mocking several senior civilian officials, including Eikenberry and Vice President Joe Biden. –READ ENTIRETY (Obama vs. the Generals; By ROSA BROOKS; POLITICO; 11/2013)
General David Petraeus
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is now thinking of retroactively taking away one or two of Petraeus’s four stars. The potential demotion in rank, opposed by the Army, is intended as further punishment for the misdemeanor to which he pleaded guilty last year. Petraeus accepted two years of probation and paid a $100,000 fine for allowing his mistress, Paula Broadwell, to read classified information for research on the biography she was writing about Petraeus.
Carter apparently wants to ensure that Petraeus is treated in the same fashion as other miscreant generals and admirals who have lost rank. Yet there is no evidence that Broadwell (who enjoyed a military security clearance of her own) ever shared the classified information with anyone or disclosed it in the biography.
That does not excuse the bad judgment of Petraeus. But it does invite an obvious comparison with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She not only sent classified information over her unsecured e-mail to several individuals but remains untruthful about that fact. –READ ENTIRETY (The Obama Administration Needs to Abandon Its Petraeus Obsession; By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON; National Review; 1/28/16 12:00)
General James Mattis, USMC
… Mattis wanted to strike Iran in retaliation for killing U.S. troops in Iraq in 2011; however, President Obama refused to grant permission.
Iranian-supplied rockets killed as many as 15 U.S. troops per month in Iraq in the summer of 2011, and Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis had a plan to retaliate. I personally recall from my years of duty in Casualty Affairs at Dover Air Force Base during this same time period, that, along with the casualties from IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices with “shaped charges” provided by Iran that could penetrate our armored vehicles) the rockets killed many U.S. troops. We were receiving the bodies of U.S. service members virtually every day, along with thousands of family members who came to Dover for the ceremonies honoring their loved ones.
Six U.S. soldiers were killed in a single such attack in early June of 2011, with another three killed days later. Mattis, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, had enough and decided the U.S. must retaliate before the Iranian rockets and IEDs caused further casualties. Coordinating with then Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, Mattis proposed an attack inside Iran.
The White House received the strike proposal and subsequently denied it. President Barack Obama believed such a strike would infuriate the Iranians, possibly escalating the need for U.S. troops in Iraq, something he was trying so desperately to end. Some Administration insiders feared the plan would start a war with Iran, a country with which President Obama wanted to improve relations.
Of course, now we know President Obama had another reason to deny the strike request, though it was not publicly known. At the time, the Obama Administration was secretly negotiating with Iran on its growing nuclear weapons program. … READ ENTIRETY (What You Need to Know About General Mattis; By Wesley Smith; ACLJ; 1/12/17)
I haven’t found reliable confirmation, but some conspiracy site claim:
Was Fired After He Refused To Take Up Arms Against U.S. Citizens by Dave Gibson 02/17/2015. –READ ENTIRETY (Obama purging top brass from the military; Posted by JS; Independence Day; 10/26/15)
Here is an article from FrontPageMag that lists several Generals and Admirals that paints a suspicious picture of an Obama purge of the military of Officers that may have found reasons to disagree with Obama’s military vision.
President Obama hasn’t just been hollowing out the military since taking office, he’s been gutting it, purging it of ideologically hostile personnel, and fundamentally transforming it into something other than a war-fighting force, military experts say.
Although few with military ties are willing to say it openly, it seems the administration is leading an orchestrated effort to seriously undermine the readiness of the military. Some reports indicate that Obama has purged 197 senior military officers since moving into the White House and that many of the retired officers have been harassed at their new civilian jobs for criticizing the president’s policies. The effects of these purges will be felt long after Obama leaves office. –READ ENTIRETY (PURGING AND TRANSFORMING OUR MILITARY; By Matthew Vadum; FrontPageMag; 11/7/13)
Here is a list of the high-level Officers mentioned in the FrontPageMag article:
- Marine Gen. James Cartwright
- Vice Admiral Tim Giardina
The American Left will tell you these generals served their time and retired or were caught in unethical or illegal activities and were forced to resign or retire. The unethical/illegal dismissals appear suspicious to me because these guys became generals or admirals because of military smarts. This insinuates sophomoric actions that tarnishes credibility is way out of the ordinary, especially if their stars were earned in combat situations that led to command reliability. One general says this about the apparent Obama military purge:
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady told WND that President Obama has forced out so many military leaders who have doubts about his policies that the nation’s armed forces no longer feel prepared to fight or to try to win armed conflicts. (Ibid.)
By this point if I were you, I’d be wondering why I am thinking about the Obama purge story which has been around for most of Obama’s two terms of Office.
I received an email from the mother of a Lieutenant convicted of murder while on active duty in Afghanistan. The email is quite compelling and knowing how Obama has been ripping the military apart, my first thought was to jump on the sympathetic train.
Before I jumped on board, I decided to check some other sources to see the military’s case against the Lieutenant. AND WHOAH! There are two conflicting stories that makes the difference between truth and lies because those who testified against the Lieutenant were there and followed orders. And another issue for me is this. Perhaps the story told by the Lieutenant’s soldiers is accurate about the Lieutenant’s character and actions, BUT the military prosecutors obviously withheld exculpatory evidence that make the Lieutenant less of a murderer and more of a taking the enemy combatants out.
So, I am going to cross post the mother’s email and then at least an excerpt of the military’s case. And you can see what I mean.
Please Support NCCR
My Son Deserves his Freedom
By Mr. Anna Lorance
Sent 1/17/2017 7:44 AM
I know we have never met. But if you have children of your own, you’ll understand why I’m writing you today.
You see, the young handsome man in this photo is my son, Lt. Clint Lorance of the U.S. Army.
Like any mother, I was so scared that Clint would be hurt – or even killed – after he was deployed to Afghanistan.
Then on July 2, 2012, it almost happened.
Clint was sent to a “hot zone” on a dangerous mission to replace a lieutenant who had been injured when the Taliban attacked his platoon just days earlier.
He was warned to look for multiple riders on red motorcycles – known as “spotters” who alert the Taliban when they see U.S. troops. And every soldier was on edge. They all knew about the earlier ambush – and that just days before a U.S. soldier had been shot in the neck in this very village.
Suddenly a U.S. helicopter radioed in to Clint that a group of motorcycle riders was sitting outside of the village near a road that was used only by the Taliban.
As Clint confirmed a clear description of the enemy, a motorcycle charged toward the platoon so one of the soldiers asked permission to fire a warning shot. Clint said, “yes.”
But the riders did not stop. Instead, they continued riding and broke through the troop’s formation, jumped off the motorcycle, and headed right toward our troops. With only a split-second to make a decision, Clint ordered his marksman to fire. Two of the riders were killed. The other was captured in the village.
Meanwhile, two other Taliban members were killed by Clint’s platoon and a second man captured trying to leave the village.
When Clint and his men arrived back at base, Clint ordered both of the prisoners to be tested for explosives residue. BOTH tested positive for residue on their hands, confirming Clint’s suspicions that the motorcycle riders posed a threat.
Yet instead of imprisoning and interrogating these men, military intelligence at Brigade Headquarters released the men back into the wild.
Then they fired Clint as platoon leader.
And one year later, Clint was sitting in a military courtroom on trial for murder.
Five other members of Clint’s platoon were also charged, including the marksman who had actually shot and killed the terrorists.
But all five were promised immunity if they would agree to testify against Clint.
Every one of the statements from these five soldiers changed from their initial statements. That’s right, not one of their stories was the same as the account they gave on the day of the attack.
But Clint’s account did not change.
And when asked for his only statement during the trial, he looked into the eyes of the jury and said, “I totally take all responsibility for my actions. I gave the order because I was the leader on the ground and perceived a hostile intent.”
My friend, I’m proud that my son gave that order.
Because only weeks after the ambush on Clint’s platoon, a motorcycle with two riders rode into a village where U.S. soldiers were patrolling and detonated explosives strapped to their cycle. That leader did not react as my son did – and American soldiers died.
But none of this mattered to the military court. Even though Clint never fired his weapon, he was found “guilty” and sentenced to 20 years in Fort Leavenworth Prison.
As soon as the verdict was read, Clint turned to us. He told his brother, “Be strong and promise me that you will take care of my Momma and Dad.”
Then he took me by the shoulders and said, “Momma I can’t leave here without knowing that you are okay.”
It took every bit of strength I had to not cry. I did not want Clint to see me in tears as they took him from the courtroom. Instead I told him, “We will get through this. God loves to walk the dark hills with us.”
Now, over three years later, I’m seeing just how much God is walking with us through this terrible time thanks to Major Bill Donahue of the United American Patriots. UAP helps provide legal defenses for soldiers like Clint who have been unjustly accused of crimes for making split-second decisions in the heat of combat.
Maj. Donahue is a Marine who survived three tours of duty in Vietnam – so he knows what it’s like to make decisions behind enemy lines. And he knows you can’t second-guess our young soldiers who have been trained to defend themselves in combat.
UAP is fighting to help Clint mount an appeal, a motion for mistrial AND secure a presidential pardon. But it’s a costly process – and money our son doesn’t have.
Clint was stripped of all pay when he was indicted. He was forced to sell his house. And he lost all 10 years of his Army pension.
All we can do now is rely on UAP and the big hearts of American patriots like you who support them and their mission.
UAP is a non-profit organization. They don’t receive a dime of federal funding. And Maj. Donahue doesn’t even take a salary for his work. He just wants to help soldiers.
If you can help with a tax-deductible gift of any amount, won’t you please send it to UAP today to help them fight for my son?
While politically correct government officials are going to extreme measures to protect the “civil rights” of terrorists who want to destroy our country, soldiers like my son are sitting in prison for protecting our nation from these terrorists!
On behalf of every mother of a U.S. soldier, thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for whatever support you can send today.
Mrs. Anna Lorance
P.S. During a break in the trial, I walked outside to catch some air. The last soldier who had testified against Clint was standing on the sidewalk with tears running down his face. When he looked up at me he quickly dropped his head in shame. Clearly, he knows he helped the Obama Administration send an innocent soldier to prison. Thank you for helping UAP fight to bring him home!
Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case
By Michelle Tan
January 12, 2015
Shortly after the soldiers from 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment set out on patrol from Strong Point Payenzai, Afghanistan, a motorcycle carrying three Afghan men came into view.
Pfc. James Skelton reported the sighting to 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, his new platoon leader.
“He told me to engage,” Skelton said, according to the transcript from Lorance’s court-martial.
Skelton fired two shots. He missed. The motorcycle came to a stop, the men climbed off and began walking towards the Afghan National Army soldiers who were at the front of the U.S.-Afghan patrol.
“The ANA started telling them to go back, waving to them to return towards the motorcycle, to stay away,” Skelton testified. “They turned around and went back towards the motorcycle.”
Within seconds, two of them were dead. The third man ran away.
A gun truck that was accompanying the soldiers on foot had opened fire with its M240B machine gun.
“He was told to engage by Lieutenant Lorance when they had a visual,” Skelton testified.
“Did he ask the vehicle what the men were doing?” the prosecutor asked.
“No,” Skelton said.
“He just told them to engage?” the prosecutor asked.
“Yes,” Skelton said.
One year after that fateful July 2, 2012, patrol, in a case that has been controversial from the start, Lorance was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.
Lorance, now 30, is serving a 19-year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, but his case is far from over. Across the nation, thousands are rallying in hopes the baby-faced soldier can regain his freedom. They see him as a patriot, unfairly punished for actions taken to protect his fellow soldiers.
His own soldiers, however, paint a much different picture: They claim their platoon leader was ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats.
But as the fight for the young officer’s freedom has gained traction online and on social media, Lorance’s own soldiers are pushing back, they say, to make sure their side of the story is told.
Two sides of Clint Lorance
“All these petitioners need to be shown what kind of man [Lorance] really is,” said a soldier who served as a team leader in Lorance’s platoon, who asked to speak on background because he is still on active duty. “This isn’t a soldier that went to war and gone done wrong. This is a soldier that had a taste for blood and wanted to have that fulfilled. And he did, but in the wrong way.”
Todd Fitzgerald, a former specialist and infantryman in Lorance’s platoon, said he felt betrayed by the lieutenant.
“I don’t believe that he really understood what he was getting into,” he said.
Fitzgerald testified during Lorance’s court-martial.
“Us testifying against him, it wasn’t a matter of not liking him, it wasn’t a matter of any type of grudge or coercion,” he said. “It was simply we knew that his actions, based on our experience, having operated in that area for months, were going to breed further insurgency. If you kill local citizens, they’re no longer willing to help you.”
Testimony from these solders is in stark contrast to how Lorance’s mother, Anna, describes her son.
Fight for a new trial
Maher said he is disappointed in Clarke’s decision regarding clemency. He also said his client has grounds for a new trial.
“The defense has now identified information linking five of seven Afghan military-aged males on the field that day with terror,” Maher said. “Because the government has always had that information and did not disclose it to the command or the trial defense counsel, examining 1st Lt. Lorance’s decision-making takes a back seat. We never get to that question.”
Basically, the government is obligated to disclose evidence that could negate guilt, reduce the degree of guilt or reduce the punishment for the accused, Maher said, citing the Rule for Courts-Martial.
“The first day at the Army JAG school, we’re taught you turn over everything,” said Maher, who also is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
The government made a “serious legal error” by not turning over exonerating and/or mitigating evidence contained in government computer databases, Maher said.
“Before the government can take away any soldier’s liberty, freedom, career, income, retirement, educational benefits, and full ability to get a job, the government must follow the rules,” he said. “Here, it did not.”
If that information had been turned over, the defense might have taken a different approach, or the case may not even have made it to trial, said Maher, who points out Lorance never fired his weapon that day.
“Clint did not initiate this, nor did he engage anybody directly,” he said.
Though he didn’t fire the weapon, he was convicted of making the call. He was also convicted of threatening a local Afghan; firing an M14 rifle into a village and trying to have one of his soldiers lie about receiving incoming fire; and obstructing justice by making a false radio report after the two men on the motorcycle were killed.
“Over about a three-day period, Lieutenant Lorance … committed crimes of violence and crimes of dishonesty,” said Capt. Kirk Otto, who prosecuted the case for the government, according to a transcript of the court-martial.
First, on June 30, 2012, Lorance threatened to kill an Afghan man and his family, Otto said in his opening statement.
The man, a farmer, and his child, who was about 4 years old, were at the gate to talk to the Americans about the concertina wire that was blocking access to his farm field, Otto said.
“He said, ‘You move the c-wire, I’ll have somebody kill you,'” Spc. James Twist, who was at the scene, testified during the court-martial.
Lorance then tried to have the Afghan turn in IEDs to the Americans, Twist testified.
“He was like, ‘You bring us IEDs or we’ll have the ANA kill your family,'” Twist said. “And Lieutenant Lorance was like, ‘Well, if we ever come onto your land and we step on an IED or we find an IED, I’ll have the ANA come and kill your family.’ And he pointed to the kid and said, ‘Do you want to see your child grow up?'”
The next day, Lorance directed one of the platoon’s squad designated marksmen to fire his M14 rifle from one of the Strong Point’s guard towers into the neighboring village of Sarenzai, Otto said.
“He directs harassing fire — illegal harassing fire — at villagers,” Otto said.
Lorance directed his soldier to shoot near groups of people, as well as at walls and vehicles, he said. The soldier, Spc. Matthew Rush, refused to shoot when Lorance directed him to fire near a group of children, Otto said.
“These villagers were not doing anything,” Otto said. “There was no demonstrated hostile intent. No one heard incoming shots.”
The soldier who served as a team leader in the platoon, who spoke to Army Times on background, said he has pictures of Lorance on the rooftop.
“He was out of control,” the soldier said. “We told him, ‘Sir, I don’t think it’s a good idea.’ He was like, ‘Oh, it’s a great idea. We’re going to scare these guys so they actually attend our shura, and we won’t lose anymore guys.”
Lorance later tried to have Sgt. Daniel Williams, who was in the tactical operations center, falsely report that the Strong Point received incoming potshots, Otto said.
“He told me to report up that they had taken potshots from the village,” Williams testified. “I told him that I wouldn’t … because it’s a false report. At least I thought so, sir.”
Williams also testified that Lorance said “he didn’t really care about upsetting them too much because he f**king hated them.”
‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?’
The next day, as the soldiers prepared to head out on a patrol, a small group of three or four Afghan men met them at the gate.
The men were upset. They wanted to know why the Americans shot into their village the day before.
Lorance told them that if they had a problem, they could attend the shura, or meeting, he planned to have later in the week, according to testimony. The Afghans refused to budge.
“He told them to get out of there,” Skelton said in his testimony. “He started very aggressively yelling at them, and he started counting, and he pulled back the charging handle on his weapon and chambered a round.”
As the soldiers’ interpreter “panicked,” one of the other soldiers testified, the Afghans turned away and left.
The Americans and a squad of Afghan National Army soldiers began walking out on their patrol.
Just moments into the patrol, Skelton opened fire on the motorcycle and then Pvt. David Shilo, operating the M240B machine gunon the truck, killed the two Afghans.
Fitzgerald, who left the Army in August, said he was standing near Lorance when the men on the motorcycle were hit.
“I remember him asking, ‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?'” Fitzgerald said, adding that Lorance then took the radio and ordered the soldiers in the gun truck to open fire.
The men on the motorcycle stopped when Skelton first opened fire, Fitzgerald said.
“At that point, they were definitely not any type of threat,” he said. “They weren’t coming at us.”
The patrol then pushed on into the village, where the bodies were quickly surrounded by crying and upset villagers.
First, Lorance prevented Skelton, who’s trained to conduct battle damage assessments, including … READ ENTIRETY
The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance
December 8, 2016
Military Votes Count
The Case Against Clint Lorance –
His own men testified against him. They said the guys on the motorcycles were not a threat. At first, they refused to fire, but Clint ordered them to open fire. They also claimed that Lt. Lorance threatened a local farmer that he and his son would be killed if the Taliban planted an I.E.D. (improvised explosive device) on their farm land.
If your own troops testify against you, that has to be given heavy weight; however, that four of the six troops were granted immunity places shade on their testimony.
The Case In Favor of Clint Lorance –
Clint Lorance was sent into a heavy Taliban-invested area to replace another leuitent that had been wounded. At the trial the government may not have disclosed that the men who were killed were Taliban IED terrorists. Following the trial, this evidence came out (and here). Clint also had information that his troops did not from overhead surveillance which indicated Taliban were closing in on his position.
The Takeaway –
If the government withheld exculpatory evidence, then the military prosecutors should be charged. I don’t know that they did that, but if they did.
There are two versions of this story. In one version Clint is a blood thirsty 1st Lt. who is out of control, who is killing the very people our troops were sent there to protect. In the other version, the people he killed were the enemy, and the government knew they were the enemy. In this second version, 1st Lt. Clint Lorance had good reason to believe they were the enemy.
There is … READ ENTIRETY
Supporters of Lt. Clint Lorance that send email alerts:
Lt. Col. Allen West
United American Patriots (UAP)
UAP Petition (to Obama – hopefully changing to President Trump)
UAP Donation for Lt. Clint Lorance
Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance
John R. Houk
© January 20, 2017
My Son Deserves his Freedom
SUPPORT CLINT LORANCE
United American Patriots is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
Mailing Address: 121-F Shields Park Drive, Kernersville, NC 27284
© Copyright 2016, UnitedPatriots.org
Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case
© 2017 Sightline Media Group Site
About Army Times
The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance
Copyright © 2017 Military Votes Count.
About Military Votes Count