The Power of Truth® has been released for sale and assignment to a conservative pro-American news outlet, cable network, or other media outlet that wants to define and brand its operation as the bearer of the truth, and set itself above the competition.

In every news story the audience hears of censorship, speech, and the truth. The Power of Truth® has significant value to define an outlet, and expand its audience. A growing media outlet may decide to rebrand their operation The Power of Truth®. An established outlet may choose to make it the slogan distinguishing their operation from the competition. You want people to think of your outlet when they hear it, and think of the slogan when they see your company name. It is the thing which answers the consumer's questions: Why should I choose you? Why should I listen to you? Think:

  • What’s in your wallet -- Capital One
  • The most trusted name in news – CNN
  • Fair and balanced - Fox News
  • Where’s the beef -- Wendy’s
  • You’re in good hands -- Allstate
  • The ultimate driving machine -- BMW

The Power of Truth® is registered at the federal trademark level in all applicable trademark classes, and the sale and assignment includes the applicable domain names. The buyer will have both the trademark and the domains so that it will control its business landscape without downrange interference.

Contact: Truth@ThePowerOfTruth.com

Syrians celebrate at Umayyad Square in Aleppo, Syria.

Pentagon officials say that the massive strikes against more than 75 Islamic State terrorist group targets in Syria over the weekend were the result of an opportunity created by the withdrawal of Russian forces amid the collapse of the regime of Bashar Assad.

"We saw the opportunity, and we took it" was Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh's answer on Monday when asked whether the strikes' timing, which were conducted in Syria's Badiya desert, coincided with the departure of Russian air assets.

The strikes, which took place Sunday, targeted Islamic State leaders and camps that, according to Singh, "we know have operated there for ... many, many years." The U.S. launched an ongoing military campaign against the group in 2014 after it seized territory in Syria and Iraq, carried out international attacks, and executed aid workers and journalists.

Read Next: Compromise Defense Bill Would Give Junior Troops 14.5% Pay Raise in 2025[1]

U.S. Central Command, in a post to social media Sunday, said that it struck "over 75 targets using multiple U.S. Air Force[2] assets, including B-52s[3], F-15s[4], and A-10s[5]" in "approximately five locations," according to Singh.

A senior administration official told reporters[6] Monday that around 140 munitions were used in the attack.

U.S. officials say that the strikes are meant to send a message to the Islamic State, which is also referred to as IS, that the instability in Syria is not an opportunity for it to resume operations.

"I think anytime there is chaos or a leadership vacuum, [IS] will always try and use that as an advantage and fill that void, which is exactly what we don't want to see happen," Singh said. "That's why we took the actions that we did."

However, neither Singh nor other officials were willing to offer an estimate on just how much a blow the strikes did to the international terrorist group, which U.S. forces have been fighting for around a decade[7].

Singh pushed back against the assertion by reporters that the strikes -- the latest of countless carried out by the U.S. against ISIS in recent years -- were not making an impact.

"We haven't eradicated IS off the map, but their capability is nowhere near where they used to be," she said.

However, while the collapse of Assad's regime has offered U.S. forces an opportunity to strike at the Islamic State group in areas previously unavailable to them, the uncertainty of Syria's future also poses significant risk to American troops in the area.

The rebels who captured the Syrian capital are led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, a group that traces its origins back to an al-Qaida affiliate and was designated as a terrorist organization in 2018.

The group's leader, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, was involved with militants who fought U.S. troops in Iraq following the invasion in 2003, and the State Department has a $10 million bounty for information about him[8].

More recently, though, the group has moderated its views and says it has not only renounced extremism but is focusing on creating an Islamic republic in Syria that would be religiously tolerant[9] and broadly democratic[10].

Singh said that the U.S. has no formal communication with the group that seems to be the new rulers of Syria but noted that "we certainly have counterparts and other groups that have ways of delivering messages to HTS and other rebel groups." Singh also said she was not aware of an official channel being set up with HTS or other rebel groups to deconflict military operations and prevent unnecessary casualties.

Instead of HTS, the U.S. has long maintained a relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, a joint Kurdish-Arab militia in the country that controls much of the western part of Syria[11] but whose territory doesn't include key cities like Aleppo, Homs or Damascus.

Singh said that this continued partnership with the SDF was instrumental in keeping the Islamic State, as well as Iranian-backed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, in check.

The senior administration official said that they hope the statements of rebel leaders and what they're saying are translated into actions on the ground.

"We're very much hopeful they will be," they added but also noted that "we will be engaging with a broad spectrum of Syrian society, opposition groups, groups on the ground in Syria, exile groups."

But the official also said that the U.S. has "to be smart in how we deal with it, and also very mindful and pragmatic about the realities on the ground."

Related: Iran-Linked Attacks on US Troops Continue Despite Second Airstrike in Syria Meant to Send Message[12]

© Copyright 2024 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[13].

Read more

Four people sit facing several monitors. A sign above them reads: Every December, millions of families around the world track Santa's Yuletide journey through the North American Aerospace Defense Command's Santa Tracker. "NORAD Tracks Santa" is a holiday tradition that started from humble origins — and as a fluke — but

Read more

Children supporting transgenders rights protest during a rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington.

Transgender children of service members could lose access to gender-affirming health care through the military health system under the annual defense bill Congress is expected to approve this month.

This year's version of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, that was negotiated by the House and Senate would prohibit Tricare[1] from covering "medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization" for beneficiaries under 18. The bill is considered a must-pass piece of legislation since it authorizes special pay[2] and bonuses for troops that would expire at the end of the year if not renewed.

The restriction, which does not specify exactly which treatments would be banned, is somewhat less stringent than an earlier version of the bill that specifically banned Tricare from covering hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors. But advocates are still warning the final language will harm military families.

Read Next: Compromise Defense Bill Would Give Junior Troops 14.5% Pay Raise in 2025[3]

"Lawmakers are playing politics with the military families' health care. This is a betrayal of our service members and a threat to national security," Rachel Branaman, executive director of the Modern Military Association of America, which advocates for LGBTQ+ troops and military families, said in a written statement.

"By forcing families to choose between their military careers and their children's health care, this bill would lead to decreased military readiness and retention," Branaman added. "Families have made it clear that they will choose health care for their loved ones over their careers if this provision is passed."

It's unclear exactly how many military children would be affected by a ban in Tricare coverage of gender-affirming care for minors. A 2019 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that more than 2,500 children[4] received some form of transgender-related care through Tricare from 2009 to 2017, including 332 prescriptions for hormones in 2017.

Military.com asked the Defense Health Agency on Monday for current numbers on transgender kids receiving treatment through Tricare, but the agency did not provide them by publication time.

The impending ban on gender-affirming care for military children adds to a fraught time for LGBTQ+ service members and their families as they brace for the incoming Trump administration. President-elect Donald Trump is widely expected to reimpose a ban[5] on transgender troops serving openly.

The NDAA provision also follows a trend of conservative legislators across the country specifically targeting gender-affirming care for transgender children. At least 79 bills were proposed in state legislatures this year to restrict gender-affirming care by age, according to a tracker maintained by the American Civil Liberties Union[6]. Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against Tennessee's ban on hormone therapy[7] for transgender youth.

While medical professionals maintain gender-affirming care for children is safe and necessary, right-wing politicians argue that research is limited and children aren't mature enough to make decisions about their health care that could have lasting effects.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., touted the NDAA provision as a major win to "end the radical woke ideology being imposed on our military by permanently banning transgender medical treatment for minors."

The American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledges that research into long-term risks of puberty blockers on fertility is "currently limited and provides varied results." Still, the association recommends that transgender youth[8] have access to "comprehensive, gender-affirming and developmentally appropriate health care that is provided in a safe and inclusive clinical space." The group also recommends that insurance plans "offer coverage for health care that is specific to the needs of youth who identify as [transgender], including coverage for medical, psychological and, when indicated, surgical gender-affirming interventions."

Transgender service members and military families have faced whiplashing policies for nearly a decade. In 2016, then-President Barack Obama lifted a ban on transgender service members. Also that year, Tricare started covering nonsurgical gender-affirmation[9] care for dependents, though patients could request a waiver for treatment before then.

Then, in 2017 during Trump's first term, he announced on social media he was reimposing the ban on transgender troops. Trump's ban took effect in 2019 after some court battles.

When President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, he lifted Trump's ban as one of his first acts in office. Now, transgender troops are facing down the likelihood of Trump again banning them when he returns to office in January.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have also tried unsuccessfully for years to restrict transgender military service. The original versions of the House and Senate's NDAAs this year also included language that would have banned[10] gender-affirming care for service members.

While the provisions targeting transgender troops were taken out of the compromise NDAA released this weekend, the restriction on health care for transgender military kids is on track to become the first anti-LGBTQ+ law enacted by Congress since the 1990s, according to the ACLU. In that decade, Congress passed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that banned gay service members and the Defense of Marriage Act that barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

While the bill released this weekend was the result of bicameral, bipartisan negotiations, Democrats are fuming at the outcome.

"Blanketly denying health care to people who clearly need it, just because of a biased notion against transgender people, is wrong," Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Sunday. "I urge the speaker to abandon this current effort and let the House bring forward a bill -- reflective of the traditional bipartisan process -- that supports our troops and their families, invests in innovation and modernization, and doesn't attack the transgender community."

The House is scheduled to vote on the bill later this week. The Senate is expected to approve it before the end of the month, after which President Joe Biden would need to sign it into law. The White House has previously blasted efforts to restrict transgender health care in the military, but has not yet publicly commented on the compromise NDAA.

Related: Restrictions on Transgender Health Care Slipped into Senate's Must-Pass Defense Bill[11]

© Copyright 2024 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[12].

Read more

More Articles …