The Army is seeking to bring back retired soldiers to fill critical manpower shortages‚ according to a servicewide directive published this week. The All Army Activities document describes how Army retirees can find and apply for open positions and aims to maintain a sufficient number of personnel to fill all of the Army’s authorized positions. The message comes as the service publicly has acknowledged its struggles to balance a shrinking workforce with the demands of sprawling global mission sets as recruitment woes persist for a third year in a row. “A review of commands’ requests for [the] fill of authorized personnel vacancies‚ in conjunction with current Army manning guidance‚ prompted review of how the Army can fill key and critical position vacancies‚” the document states‚ outlining the situation. “The retiree recall program can be an effective tool to fill personnel shortages of authorized regular Army vacancies that are considered key and essential.” It was unclear whether the Army already had identified manning shortages to be filled or was issuing the message in anticipation of future need. The Army didn’t respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comments by deadline. Any Army‚ Reserve‚ or National Guard soldier who qualifies as retired or soon to be retired—meaning with at least 20 years of service—and anyone receiving retired pay is eligible to apply‚ the Army’s message states. Neither age nor disability alone would exclude a soldier from joining‚ depending on the disability‚ and returning service members would still have to meet the Army’s health requirements. “There is no age limitation‚ although personnel older than 70 are not normally recalled‚” the message states. Those who apply for the program essentially allow the Army to send them orders to return to active duty if a critical role opens that no one else can fill. However‚ the message doesn’t authorize any special pay or incentives. I don’t fully understand this memo but hey‚ what the hell‚ any Old #M1Abrams Tanker want to ride again?? You remember that no matter what it’s still the #BestJobIEverHad ?? https://t.co/gxNCkrKMa6— Michael Liscano Jr. (@jr_liscano) March 21‚ 2024 Publication of the Army document initially sparked confusion and even irony among military professionals online regarding the program’s voluntary nature and whether it indicates deeper manning issues. “The Army does have significant manpower shortages‚ but they are concentrated at the lower enlistment grades due to the recruiting crisis‚” retired Lt. Col. Thomas Spoehr‚ an expert on defense policy and strategy and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies‚ told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “So I am not sure this particular message does indicate a problem‚ since retirees are old.” However‚ the Army recently acknowledged a persistent problem with roles that go unfilled for too long and proposed a reorganization that would cut down on the number of open positions by the thousands. After a yearlong review of the Army’s force structure‚ published in late February‚ the service concluded that the number and specialization of positions comprising the force did not match up with the changing security environment. The Army is “over-structured‚ meaning there are not enough soldiers to fill out existing units and organizations‚” the review states. It emphasizes that the cuts are coming to “authorizations (spaces)” not “individual soldiers (faces).” The Army’s current force structure assumes an active-duty end strength—or total number of troops—of 494‚000‚ according to the document. Congress capped end strength at 445‚000 in the fiscal year 2024 defense policy bill‚ a historically low number as the Army struggled to recruit enough soldiers to meet end-strength goals. Officials justified cutting 24‚000 roles that had been left empty as the Army deals with its worst-ever recruiting crisis as helping ensure the service only plans to assign and deploy the people it has available‚ reducing strain and allowing for more realistic planning. Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Army Seeks Retirees to Come Back to Work Amid Manpower Crisis appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine‚ Laura Thornton‚ the senior vice president for democracy at the U.S. taxpayer-funded German Marshall Fund‚ published a sweeping polemic attacking The Heritage Foundation‚ its Project 2025‚ and democracy itself. Project 2025 (which I have contributed to) brought together over a hundred conservative organizations to make policy suggestions for the next conservative presidential administration. Among those were recommendations on foreign aid policy. Thornton is particularly triggered by Project 2025’s call to end the U.S. Agency for International Development’s “divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion‚ climate extremism‚ gender radicalism‚ and interventions against perceived systemic racism.” She calls the recommendation “illiberal.” The truth is that these issues are divisive and should be subject to contestation in the political sphere; and to suggest that political opposition to this agenda should be suppressed is itself illiberal. Project 2025’s “radical” position is that the American people support foreign aid for those in real need and that the far Left’s use of foreign assistance to promote an ideological agenda damages and undermines public support for foreign aid. She notes that if former President Donald Trump is elected‚ he will dismantle all diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion‚ or DEI‚ initiatives (which many view as institutionalized racism) at USAID and fire the chief diversity officer and all advisers and committees. She implies this is somehow undemocratic or illiberal but then goes on to state that the Obama administration mandated the DEI ideology in government agencies through an executive order in 2016‚ which the Trump administration scaled back in 2017‚ and President Joe Biden reintroduced on his first day in office. Clearly‚ this type of action is within a president’s purview‚ and if Trump is reelected in 2024‚ he will have a mandate to roll back policies of his predecessors and implement new ones. To suggest otherwise is undemocratic. According to Thornton‚ Project 2025 will “eliminate the word ‘gender‚’ full stop.” She goes on to state‚ “Removing a gender lens would take us back in time to programming that often harmed women‚ inadvertently‚ by failing to analyze the varying effects of programming based on gender and power dynamics in different environments.” Her passage cites a report on ending female genital mutilation‚ which is ironic. What the Project 2025 team objected to was not programs aimed at empowering marginalized women but the modern use of the word “gender” to describe an ideological worldview that denies the fundamental (at the cellular level) differences between men and women and promotes castration and mastectomy as palliative treatments for mental illness. Thornton objects to the recommendation to end programs that promote abortion and the LGBTQ+ agenda overseas. We believe that secretly using taxpayer money intended for humanitarian relief and development to promote a divisive ideological agenda is dishonest and that forcing this agenda on to poor countries by providing or withholding aid funding is “cultural colonialism” at its worst‚ and profoundly undemocratic. Thornton criticizes the New Partnership Initiative‚ which was an attempt by the Trump administration to move beyond just providing assistance through massive Washington-based contractors (colloquially called the aid-industrial complex)‚ and support smaller‚ locally based organizations‚ including faith-based organizations. Thornton suggests that all of the funding cut from abortion and LGBTQ+ organizations will be redirected to support religious organizations. The truth is that in many countries (including in Muslim countries)‚ religious organizations are the strongest and most authentic civil society organizations and are often the most effective actors in promoting both development and democracy. During Democratic administrations‚ support for faith-based organizations has been de-emphasized in favor of donor-created‚ AstroTurf‚ client organizations that can be relied on to reliably parrot the leftist party line. Renewing relationships with faith-based organizations and redressing this imbalance is not about promoting a religion. It is intended to improve the quality of development assistance and thus improve the lives of the poorest and most marginalized peoples. Thornton works for the German Marshall Fund‚ a publicly funded foreign policy organization that claims to be nonpartisan‚ yet its publications don’t include lively debate among politically diverse contributors. Instead‚ all of its content and programs promote an extreme left-wing agenda and attack any government or policy not deemed “progressive.” The German Marshall Fund is also a leader in the development of the “disinformation” strategies that have been used in opposition to political speech in Europe and the United States. You would also think that an organization that purports to support multiparty democracy would model that conviction internally‚ but a review of political contribution data collected by the Federal Election Commission shows that of the $100‚000 the organization’s employees contributed from 2019 to the present‚ just one contribution for $208 went to a Republican (Nikki Haley). Instead of modeling multiparty democracy‚ the German Marshall Fund actually models a one-party state. Thornton supports the position that any policy implemented by a Democrat can only be changed by a Democrat‚ and that any Republican that dares to alter a Democratic policy is illegitimate and illiberal‚ regardless of any mandate from voters. She applauds USAID employees who undermined the policy initiatives of the Trump administration by hiding programs the administration sought to cancel by “slight renaming of initiatives or cleverly filing them under more favorable‚ broader categories like ‘human rights.’” Although Thornton is vice president for democracy at the German Marshall Fund‚ it is clear that she and her organization‚ like many progressives‚ don’t understand the word “democracy.” It is also clear that if she did understand the word‚ she would be against it. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.  The post Taxpayer-Funded Think Tank Supports US Exporting Divisive Cultural Agenda appeared first on The Daily Signal.

BERKELEY‚ Calif.—When scholars from the Right and Left recently met at UC Berkeley School of Law to debate what to do about surging crime‚ the event provided a rare opportunity to identify key philosophical and policy fault lines as Americans ponder policing and criminal justice. The conference‚ sponsored by Berkeley Law and The Heritage Foundation‚ featured not only scholars from across the political spectrum but district attorneys and former district attorneys—including San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin‚ now a professor at the law school and director of Berkeley’s Criminal Law &; Justice Center. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.) What became apparent throughout the conference is the stark contrast between each side’s view of human nature.  Although both sides said they want fewer crimes‚ a wide and seemingly intractable gulf appeared to loom between the methods the Left and Right would use to achieve that end. Zack Smith‚ a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation‚ led off with a speech about the necessity of the discussion—especially considering demands for reduced sentencing and other criminal justice reforms that have coincided with increases in crime. In 2014‚ California adopted Proposition 47‚ a ballot initiative that reduced penalties for many crimes and led to the early release of many prisoners. The change led to a series of similar laws around the country. “Too often today when we talk about criminal justice reform‚ when we talk about criminal justice issues‚ there’s no accountability for people who break the law‚” Smith told conferees. Smith said it was a myth that first-time drug offenders‚ for instance‚ spend time behind bars. “Most people in prison today are committing violent crimes like rape‚ robbery‚ and murder‚ so whenever you hear panelists today or elsewhere talk about reducing the prison population by 50%‚ 75%‚ even 80% in some cases‚ that necessarily means releasing some repeat‚ violent offenders back into our communities‚” the Heritage scholar  said. Here’s a roundup of the most important discussions that took place at the March 8 gathering‚ titled Justice Unveiled: Debating Crime and Public Safety Conference. How to Prevent Crime: A Conflict of Visions           A panel on policing and public safety at the conference demonstrated the sharpest conflict of visions—as commentator Thomas Sowell has put it—between the Left and Right on crime.  On the Right‚ the focus is on targeted policing in high- crime areas and stricter sentencing laws for those who commit crimes. On the Left‚ so-called prison abolitionists focus on structural forces and “root causes” to explain crime‚ and blame more policing for creating more crime. Jamelia Morgan‚ a professor at the Center for Racial and Disability Justice at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law‚ argued for more “soft police” to take the place of traditional policing. Essentially‚ that means more social workers instead of police officers. Morgan pointed to the writings of Mariame Kaba‚ who is at the forefront of those who want to abolish police and prison. The law professor quoted from Kaba’s 2020 New York Times article‚ published just as the George Floyd protests and riots were beginning. Morgan said‚ quoting Kaba: As a society‚ we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm. People like me who want to abolish prisons and police‚ however‚ have a vision of a different society‚ built on cooperation instead of individualism‚ on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. Kaba advocates spending more taxpayer money on housing‚ food‚ and education as an answer to problems of safety and justice. Many U.S. cities defunded police departments in 2020 and 2021‚ after Floyd’s death in police custody in Minneapolis.  The murder rate jumped by 30% from 2019 to 2020 according to the FBI‚ the largest single-year jump in recorded U.S. history. Rafael Mangual‚ the Nick Ohnell fellow at the Manhattan Institute‚ said police are an essential element of promoting justice and protecting citizens in a free society. Police perform two broad roles‚ Mangual said‚ specifying that “one is to detect violations of the law‚ the other is to prevent violations of the law.” Often‚ just the presence of police is enough to deter crime‚ according to research‚ he said. The second way to stop crime is to remove criminals from the street‚ the Manhattan Institute scholar said‚ noting crime statistics that show how investing in police led to sharp reductions in crime and other costs to the city and community. “If a police officer makes an arrest and removes an active offender from the street‚ if that’s someone who was committing 10‚ 20‚ 30 felonies a year‚ that individual being in custody spares the community the crimes that would have otherwise been committed‚” Mangual said. The main thing driving recent spikes in crime is the problem of repeat offenders‚ he said. The same individuals often commit crimes over and over because the justice system puts them back on the street. “In the city of Chicago‚ the typical homicide suspect has 12 prior arrests‚” Mangual said. “One in five [homicide suspects]‚ 20 prior arrests‚ these are not just individuals who are being locked up for the first offense and having the key thrown away.” The problem of crime always will be with us‚ whether we like it or not‚ the Manhattan Institute scholar said. “No one has ever been able to figure out how to eliminate poverty; no one has ever figured out how to eliminate inequality; no one has ever figured out how to eliminate crime or predation. It is part of the human condition‚” Mangual said. Taking away policing‚ which has proved to be effective in reducing crime and violence‚ is “irresponsible‚” he concluded. This enunciation of the constrained view of human nature provoked a response from representatives of the Left on the panel. Shakeer Rahman‚ an attorney for the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition and Los Angeles Community Action Network‚ appeared incredulous that Mangual said crime and inequality always will be with us. “Abolitionists are the hopeful ones‚ because we believe that a world without poverty is possible‚ that that can be built and that’s at least worth prioritizing‚” Rahman said. Rahman said that this leads to the problem of racial disparities in incarceration. Factors such as structural racism lead to this disparity‚ he said. Mangual interjected at this point‚ saying he believes some structural factors drive crime. It isn’t because something is wrong with people like himself who have African roots‚ he said. Instead‚ the issue is the breakdown of families‚ Mangual argued. The disintegration of the family—especially black families—has created childhood disorders that lead to longer-term behavioral issues‚ he said. Rahman responded that the U.S. criminal justice system has broken up black families‚ to which Mangual replied that research suggests that the prevalence of family members who engage in criminal activities is an even bigger driver of crime than fathers who are absent from the home. Crime Surge a Hoax‚ the Left Says According to a recent Gallup poll‚ the number of Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—who say they consider crime a “serious problem” is at the highest point since the polling firm began recording it in 2000. But many left-wing speakers at the conference said the widespread perception that crime has become a serious problem is based on media propaganda and is false. USC Gould School of Law Professor Jody Armour‚ who focuses on critical race theory scholarship‚ said the perception that crime is increasing is just a “moral panic.” One of the biggest points of contention at the Berkeley Law School conference was whether there is a spike in crime at all. On a panel about crime trends‚ civil rights lawyer Alec Karakatsanis said that media reporting on crime is the issue‚ not the crimes themselves. Although many crime statistics are “true facts‚” Karakatsanis said‚ they are used “to deceive people in profound ways.” He blamed the media for creating the impression that crime is up. The civil rights lawyer pointed to a brazen theft at a San Francisco Walgreens that received widespread media coverage. The incident was real‚  he said‚ but it created a “false impression” that shoplifting is increasing when shoplifting is down. Reported shoplifting incidents were down slightly in San Francisco in 2023 compared to the previous year‚ but the latest numbers are still much higher compared to 2019.  Walgreens and other retail stores throughout the Bay Area often take extreme actions to prevent widespread retail theft‚ such as putting locks on freezers and shelves.  One Walgreens location in Richmond‚ California—a city close to San Francisco—put chewing gum behind glass‚ The San Francisco Standard reported. Many Walgreens locations have closed down because the drug store chain says they no longer are profitable. Many such retail thefts are being committed by organized crime rings‚ police say. Talking about crime comes down to “framing‚” Karakatsanis said‚ and “most people in society have utterly lost their way when they think about what public safety means.” The problem with looking at crime‚ he said‚ is that most people look at so-called index crimes such as homicide‚ assault‚ and property theft. Most crimes‚ he argued‚ aren’t reported as crimes. He pointed to tax evasion‚ “wage theft‚” and corporate fraud. A System Focused on Equity‚ Not Preventing Crime Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald said she isn’t optimistic about criminal justice trends.  MacDonald spoke about how many cities signal that crimes simply won’t be punished. So‚ she said‚ criminals became more brazen and the commission of many kinds of crimes exploded. She focused on the increase in retail crimes that the left-wing scholars dismissed. “Our criminal justice elites have decided that they would rather subject the property of honest businessmen to mass expropriation than to apprehend and punish looters‚ because doing so has a disparate impact on minority criminals‚” MacDonald said. These are “not crimes of necessity‚ they are crimes of opportunity‚” she said. MacDonald drove home the point that the rise in retail and property crimes is not being driven by poverty or economic hardship. Many of those committing retail thefts record the act on a smartphone and post the videos on social media‚ she said. “No one who has a smartphone is poor‚” MacDonald said. “No one engaged in these crimes is unable to eat. Rather‚ predatory theft comes from a sense of entitlement. If others have something I don’t have‚ I’m entitled to take it.” The Manhattan Institute scholar said society shouldn’t have to be conditioned to assume that the trivial items of life—such as shampoo—need to be locked up at retail stores. “This is not a normal state‚” MacDonald said. “It is due to a failure of will. The will to enforce the values of civilized society.” Passage of California’s Prop 47‚ MacDonald said‚ launched a wave of similar decriminalization measures around the country. Reclassifying many property and drug felonies as misdemeanors‚ she said‚ has resulted in hardcore criminals remaining on the street. “It is not a ‘moral panic’ to be concerned about the lawlessness that has broken out since 2020‚ it is realism‚” MacDonald said‚ referring to Armour’s use of the term. The post Conservative Scholars Debate Prison Abolitionists at Berkeley Conference on Crime appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Some (if not most) US “newspapers of record” seem willing to trade in constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression for the success of a political option they “endorse.” Worse still‚ this could be “old news.” But that is one way to sum up what is currently going on at the Washington Post‚ who just came out with an astounding piece in defense of the Global Engagement Center (GEC) – a state State Department bureau mired in controversy. Specifically‚ controversy pertaining to the way the White House “coordinates” with major social media platforms – and critics say‚ that takes the form of coercion and‚ ultimately‚ collusion between government and private tech companies. Not only is GEC criticized for flagging posts on social media‚ but has also been sued for pushing censorship technology in violation of the First Amendment. None of that appears to matter to the Washington Post editorial board‚ who refer to the lawsuit brought by two news outlets‚ the Federalist and the Daily Wire as – “misguided – and is now worried GEC might now get “defunded.” Instead of talking about how America’s own government might be carrying out the ultimate “information meddling” – namely‚ censorship‚ against its own citizens to boot – the Washington Posts wants to focus on “disinformation” coming from abroad. And there‚ according to the article‚ GEC is simply indispensable. In early 2023‚ reports citing the Twitter Files revealed how GEC put pressure on the platform to censor information related to the Covid origin (blaming Russia for “taking advantage” of “disinformation” related to this issue – which would then turn out to be accepted theory‚ rather than a “conspiracy” one.) But the reason GEC has come under scrutiny are not its efforts to prevent China or Russia from carrying out their fully expected propaganda campaigns. It’s what the bureau’s accused of having done at home. Nevertheless‚ the Washington Post would now like to blame Republicans and other GEC critics for this government body allowing itself to steer off course and into unconstitutional activity territory. So‚ according to the paper‚ GEC is “resisting information warfare (from Russia and China”). And it claims that‚ “unfortunately‚ House Republicans are threatening to eliminate a key US agency that does so.” The post Washington Post Backs State Department’s Global Engagement Center Amid Censorship Controversies appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A lawsuit initiated by Elon Musk’s company‚ X‚ against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) was dismissed by US Judge Charles Breyer. The suit accused the CCDH‚ a non-profit organization‚ of unlawfully accessing X’s data to carry out research‚ which they then used to make allegations of increased “hate speech” and “misinformation” on the social media platform. We obtained a copy of the order for you here. X also claimed that the CCDH selectively used data from the platform to create a “scare campaign‚” driving away advertisers and causing significant financial losses. But the judge interpreted the lawsuit against the pro-censorship group as an attempt by X to silence the organization. Due to California’s anti-SLAPP law that prevents lawsuits aiming to stifle free speech‚ a federal judge on Monday overruled the case lodged by tech tycoon Elon Musk against the Center for Countering Digital Hate‚ a group that tracks the escalation of hate content on social media platform X‚ formerly known as Twitter‚ following Musk’s takeover. “Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation‚ and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose‚” wrote Judge Breyer. “Other times‚ a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the defendants for their speech.” The legal setback for Musk didn’t come as a shocker‚ considering Breyer’s stark critique of Musk’s case during the hearing last month. Breyer queried the plaintiff’s lawyers on the reason why they failed to lodge a defamation lawsuit‚ seeing as they believed CCDH’s reports were erroneously damaging. The post Judge Dismisses X Lawsuit Against Pro-Censorship Group appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Sign Up To Keep Reading This post is for Reclaim The Net supporters. Gain access to the entire archive of features and supporters-only content. Help protect free speech‚ freedom from surveillance‚ and digital civil liberties. Join Already a supporter? Login here The post Shadow Games: Questioning America’s Battle Against “Foreign Disinformation” in the Upcoming Election appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Wyoming: No Trans Procedures for Kids

MSM Meltdown at NBC

California Pizza Chains Plan Layoffs in Advance of New $20 Minimum Wage

All Senate Dems Vote No on Amendment to Prevent Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Migrant Flights