Connect with us


Tulsi and UCMJ



Tulsi and UCMJ

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the statutory law found in Title 10 of the United States Code which governs conduct of members of the United States military. This includes all Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coast Guard personnel.

Tulsi Gabbard is a Commissioned Officer as a Major in the Hawaii National Guard. She is also the incumbent Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District. Now she is also vying for the Democrat nomination to be 46th President of the United States of America.

But, are all these roles compatible? It is not my intention here to try to resolve that issue but rather to elevate the discussion so that a determination can be made by her Chain of Command.

This is primarily the responsibility of Major General Arthur J. “Joe” Logan. As Hawaii Adjutant General, he commands the Hawaii National Guard. It is also incumbent upon Hawaii Governor David Y. Ige to ensure compliance.

Active duty members of the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy including U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard, along with their respective Reserve components are subject to the UCMJ. While serving in the Army National Guard or Air National Guard, members are also covered by the UCMJ.

Unless called to extended active duty, National Guard members typically serve two days per month and two weeks per year. The uniform they wear reflects upon the United States of America and the Commander in Chief who is also President of the United States.

A Congresswoman and a Democrat Presidential candidate has every right to differ with and criticize the actions of her President. But there are legitimate concerns about a National Guard Officer doing so whether directed at him in his role as President or as Commander-in-Chief.

Allegations of misconduct in this regard have been raised in previous campaigns with Tulsi Gabbard. She has of course, predictably, exonerated herself of any wrongdoing. But an official ruling needs to be made by her Chain of Command.

Just yesterday, April 3, 2019, Tulsi Gabbard sent the following in a tweet:

“Trump is willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of our country for his own selfish interests.”

This was made in the context of border security as part of a longer tweetstorm. I’m not going to go back and research all of her previous tweets and her nearly daily YouTube videos. Even a Google search would provide only anecdotal evidence.

She certainly has the right not to be tried in the “Court of Social Media.” She should, of course, afford President Donald Trump the same respect.

National Guard and Air National Guard are unique in that they also fall under the authority of their respective Governor as well as the U.S. President and Commander in Chief. An immediate response is needed by Maj. Gen. Logan as Hawaii Adjutant General.

Respect should be given to the military service of everyone who serves honorably in uniform. I did my own time in the U.S. Air Force a half century ago during the Vietnam era.

Tulsi Gabbard has been in the Middle East. But her time in uniform in Iraq is one thing and her personal visit with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is something entirely different.

Certainly her actions as a member of Congress will be impacted by her contact with the Syrian dictator. So is her rhetoric in the Democrat presidential campaign. That is for the voters of Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District and for voters in the Democrat Primary respectively to deal with.

But whether she can perform her assigned duties as a Commissioned Officer in the Hawaii National Guard while disrespecting and insulting her Commander in Chief ~ and opposing his domestic and foreign policies as an outspoken critic ~ is something that needs immediate attention by her Chain of Command.

If she has violated the UCMJ, then a Court-Martial would be in order. She can at this point resign her Commission from the National Guard. She should realize that she has a conflict of interest.

As an American veteran and patriot, I can articulate and present the issues for consideration and potential resolution. It is first of all a matter of utmost importance under the UCMJ. It is beyond that of concern whether political parties condone a candidate for office using her military service in a partisan campaign.

I will conclude with another relevant issue. Normally, one of the basic rules of mainstream journalism is not to ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer. But, that only applies if you have a preconceived notion or conclusion that you seek to confirm.

But, we here at NOQ report are in quest of the truth whatever it may be. Therefore, issues are properly raised to determine where they legitimately lead. We are not looking for gotcha questions. We’re here to educate and provide information regarding facts.

The following screenshot is from Tulsi’s YouTube video of January 24, 2019, as she ramped up her campaign for President. Who is this man and what was the location? More importantly, why is this relevant to her campaign video?

Tusli Gabbard Mystery Man

There really are no written rules of conduct for presidential candidates. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice strictly defines what military men and women may or may not do. In the same video, she identifies herself as a member of the Hawaii National Guard.

It is hoped that the Hawaii Adjutant General will make the required determination. The Democrat Party should also censure Tulsi.

This is where the voters come in.

Conservatives really have no dog in the fight as to who wins the Democrat presidential primary. But if Tulsi runs simultaneously for re-election to Congress, we can replace her with a conservative opponent who has never dishonored a military uniform by using it for partisan political purposes.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

NOQ Report Needs Your Help




Jordan, Meadows blast House Democrats after Lewandowski hearing



Jordan Meadows blast House Dems after Lewandowski hearing

Yesterday’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by former Trump campaign manager Cory Lewandowski was a sham. It was poorly executed even as a bashing session for Democratic lawmakers to rant about the President’s campaign. One would think that after three years and multiple investigations, they’d give up. But this is all they have left. Democrats on Capitol Hill have nothing of substance left in their tanks.

House Freedom Caucus members Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows went on Fox News to blast their progressive colleagues for not only having the hearing in the first place, but also for their duplicity in handling all things associated with President Trump. The Democrats are not seeking the truth, otherwise they’d be looking into the real collusion and obstruction that has been taking place from their side of the fence. Instead, they’re talking impeachment as a distraction from their own shortcomings, their own failures.

This really comes down to a double-standard. The Democrats will hold hearings if the President sneezes wrong but if clear and unambiguous wrongdoing is uncovered about a Trump opponent, Democrats suddenly see nothing.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


‘Lite’ versions of Medicare-for-All are no better – and possibly worse – than the real thing



Lite versions of Medicare-for-All are no better - and possibly worse - than the real thing

How do Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and other Democratic candidates plan on sinking Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders? By highlighting how their radical Medicare-for-All proposals are several steps too far to the left for America and by offering “lighter” versions of their semi-popular healthcare plans. But there’s a problem with their proposals. All of them will lead to the same conclusion – single-payer healthcare – and all of them may actually be more damaging to the economy along the way.

This is saying a lot since the $32 trillion Medicare-for-All is an absolute existential threat to the United States economy. How could these lighter versions be worse?

Before we answer that, let’s look at what would happen if Buttigieg’s Medicare-for-All-Who-Wants-It, Biden’s Obamacare 2.0, or Harris’s Medicare-for-All plus private supplements ever become law in America. They all come at it from different angles, but what they’re describing is a public option for health insurance that would be taxpayer-funded and remove the out-of-pocket expenses from those who choose to take it instead of a private healthcare plan. This sounds reasonable to many Americans who want health insurance available to everyone, even those who cannot afford it, but who do not want to lose their own health insurance.

But what nobody’s mentioning is that the holes in a public option create problems for everyone, including:

  • Dichotomous healthcare services. There will be “good” healthcare offered to those with private insurance and “bad” healthcare offered to those taking the public option. We see this in action with the VA, which was intended to offer superior services to veterans. But the opposite has been proven to be the case. When government injects itself as an option against the private market, invariably the solutions they present are unambiguously inferior to the private variations. Americans will not be told of this dichotomy. Instead, they will find out when it’s too late that the healthcare they’re receiving is horrible compared to what they would have received under the private market option.
  • Increased costs across the board. What does a public option mean for the private market? Fewer customers. Fewer businesses enticing employees with health insurance benefits. Fewer healthy people paying for healthcare while higher-cost participants make private insurance more expensive for everyone. As for those on the public option, their acceptance of taxpayer-funded health insurance will, of course, drive up taxes for nearly everyone, including the middle class that nobody seems to want to admit will get hit with these taxes.
  • An eventual shift towards single-payerAs private health insurance becomes less lucrative and eventually becomes a money-loser, companies will start pulling out. We already saw this without the public option in Obamacare. Throw in a public option and it eventually becomes cost-prohibitive to offer anything other than supplemental insurance for uncovered procedures such as cosmetic surgery. The public option will become single payer by default within 3-5 years after it’s launched.

Nobody outside of the health insurance industry likes the health insurance industry, but over a hundred million Americans rely on this industry to keep themselves and their families from paying the extremely high costs for medical care. The combination of health insurance driving medical expenses and a government driving the health insurance industry has resulted in diapers costing $20 each after birth. They know most American will not care about the details as long as they’re not paying for it out of pocket, so they can encourage hospitals and doctors to charge outrageous rates. This all changes for the worst once single-payer is in place.

Back to the original premise – these “lighter” options could actually be worse for America than full-blown and immediate Medicare-for-All. With the latter, everything is upfront. They will tax us at extremely high rates to pay for their pet project. It will be horrible. But it will be understood from the beginning. With the half-measures proposed by the “moderates” in the group, the way it all pans out will be in a constant state of radical evolution. Prices will fluctuate so rapidly that changes will need to be made on the fly. It’s like inserting a knife into our backs slowly instead of just plunging it right in. The constant tearing of tissues over time may make us bleed out faster than if they just stabbed us quickly.

The various public option proposals are all single-payer-in-training. They will invariably become Medicare-for-All because private insurance will die a slow death as a result. Meanwhile, our healthcare quality and economy will die much more rapidly.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


The real reason behind California Democrats’ attack on Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash



Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) speaks at a rally after her measure to limit when companies can label workers as independent contractors was approved by a Senate committee on July 10.(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Today, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 into law which would limit the use of independent contracts.

Newsom in a signed written statement said that the new law, “will help reduce worker misclassification — workers being wrongly classified as ‘independent contractors’ rather than employees, which erodes basic worker protections like the minimum wage, paid sick days and health insurance benefits.”

The author of AB 5, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), in a written statement said, “As one of the strongest economies in the world, California is now setting the global standard for worker protections for other states and countries to follow.”

This might sound great but does Newsom or Gonzalez genuinely care about these workers or is there a more devious reason?

Here is the real reason -the Janus Decision.

In Janus vs. AFSCMF, the US Supreme Court ruled that labor unions are inherently political and that employees cannot be compelled to support them financially. What has been the result? Tens of thousands of government employees have opted out of their unions and the typical $800 to $1,200 a year they hand over to unions are gone.

Where does that money go? The vast majority of those tens of millions of dollars goes to the Democrat Party and candidates like Newsom and Gonzalez.

So by reclassifying Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash drivers as employees, what is Newsom and Gonzalez hoping to occur? According to the LA Times, Newsom stated, “the need to ensure workers in the new tech sector businesses can join labor unions.”

There you go, folks. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash drivers can join a union because they are now employees.

What will be the result?

These companies will have to drastically raise their rates to comply with the new law, thus you will pay much more to use these services. These companies will have to dismiss tens of thousands of drivers that relied on these jobs to supplement their income or even their only source of income.

For the driver’s that are lucky to keep their jobs, what will happen to them? You can rest assured that the unions will be there to extract their hard-earned money as they are pressured to join the union. Conveniently, the tens of millions they raise will be going into these politicians political bank accounts.

Now I have no love-loss for these companies. I’m a transportation CEO and they are my direct competition. This might even help me make more money.

Even if that is true or not, the facts are this had nothing to do with protecting these drivers. It was a devious plot to fill their campaign war chests will millions of dollars at the expense of you and these drivers.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading