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

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy walks with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

WASHINGTON (AP) — As the Senate wrapped up its work for the year, Sen. Michael Bennet took to the floor of the nearly empty chamber and made a late-night plea for Congress to redouble support for Ukraine[1]: “Understand the stakes at this moment."

It was the third time in recent months the Colorado Democrat has kept the Senate working late by holding up unrelated legislation in a bid to cajole lawmakers to approve tens of billions of dollars in weaponry and economic aid for Ukraine. During a nearly hour-long, emotional speech, he called on senators to see the nearly 2-year-old conflict as a defining clash of authoritarianism against democracy and implored them to consider what it means "to be fighting on that freezing front line and not know whether we're going to come through with the ammunition.”

Yet Congress broke for the holidays[2] and is not expected to return for two weeks while continued aid for Ukraine[3] has nearly been exhausted. The Biden administration is planning to send one more aid package before the new year, but says it will be the last unless Congress approves more money.

With support slipping in Congress even as conflicts and unrest rattle global security, the United States is once again struggling[4] to assert its role in the world. Under the influence of Donald Trump[5], the former president who is now the Republican Party front-runner, GOP lawmakers have increasingly taken a skeptical stance toward U.S. involvement abroad, particularly when it comes to aid to Ukraine.

Leaders of traditional allies Britain and France[6] have implored Western nations to continue their robust support, but Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is emboldened[7] and building up resources for a fresh effort as the war heads towards its third year.

“We’re living in a time when there are all kinds of forces that are tearing at democracy, at here and abroad,” Bennet said.

Bolstering Ukraine's defense used to be celebrated in the Capitol as one of a few remaining bipartisan causes. But now the fate of roughly $61 billion in funding is tied to delicate policy negotiations on Capitol Hill[8] over border and immigration changes. And in the last year, lawmakers have had to mount painstaking, round-the-clock efforts to pass even legislation that maintains basic functions of the U.S. government. Bills with ambitious changes have been almost completely out of reach for the closely divided Congress.

Still, congressional leaders are trying to rally members to address global challenges they say are among the most difficult in decades: the largest land invasion of a European nation since World War II, a war between Israel and Hamas, unrest and economic calamity driving historic levels of migration and China asserting itself as a superpower.

In the Senate, both Democratic and Republican leaders have cast the $110 billion aid package[9], which is attempting to address all those issues, as a potential turning point for democracy around the world. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer[10] told reporters last week that “history will look back if we don’t support our ally in Ukraine.”

In a year-end speech, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell[11] said: “From South Texas to Southeast Asia and from the Black Sea to the Red Sea, it is an historically challenging and consequential time to protect America’s interests, our allies and our own people.”

The Republican leader, a key supporter of Ukraine aid, has tried for months to build support in his party for Ukraine. But after a $6 billion military and civilian aid package[12] for Ukraine collapsed in October, McConnell began telling top White House officials that any funding would need to be paired with border policy changes.

The White House deliberately stayed out of the negotiations until senior officials felt the time was right to do so. But senior Republicans involved in the border talks believe the administration stepped in too late, ultimately delaying the prospects of additional Ukraine aid getting approved until the new year.

Senate negotiators have had to navigate both the explosive politics of border policy as well as one of the most complex areas of American law.

“This is a tightrope, but we are still on it,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, the lead Democratic negotiator.

At one point during the negotiations, McConnell felt compelled to stress the urgency to administration officials and impose a deadline to reach a border deal in time for the agreement to be drafted into legislative provisions before the end of the year.

With the negotiations still plodding along, McConnell called White House chief of staff Jeff Zients on Dec. 7 and said a deal must be reached within five days — a message that the Kentucky Republican emphasized to President Joe Biden[13] himself when the two men spoke later that day, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

It wouldn’t be until five days later, on Dec. 12, that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and senior White House aides came to the Capitol to participate directly in the negotiations. A White House official said the administration got involved when it did because it felt the talks had moved beyond the realm of unacceptable or unattainable measures — and to a more productive phase.

A second White House official stressed that previous legislative negotiations, such as the bipartisan infrastructure law that is now more than two years old, started similarly, with Republican and Democratic senators talking on their own and the administration stepping in once it felt the talks were ready for White House involvement.

Still, “it would be nice to have had them earlier,” Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, the chief GOP negotiator, said last week.

“We would have a lot more progress, and we would have had potential to be able to get this done by this week if they would have gotten earlier,” Lankford said. The two White House officials and the person familiar with McConnell's phone call to Biden all spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private and ongoing negotiations.

The White House's strategy of including Republican priorities such as Israel aid and border security in the package has also raised several thorny issues for Democrats.

Progressive lawmakers, critical of Israel's campaign into Gaza that has killed thousands of civilians[14], have called for humanitarian conditions to be placed on the money for Israel. And Latino Democrats in both the Senate and House[15] have also been critical of restrictions on asylum claims.

Any package also faces deep uncertainty in the House, where Republican Speaker Mike Johnson[16] holds tenuous control of the closely divided chamber. Before becoming speaker in October, Johnson had repeatedly voted against aid for Ukraine, but he has surprised many by offering support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and saying he wants to find a way to approve the aid.

But Trump’s allies in the House have repeatedly tried to stop the U.S. from sending more aid to Ukraine. And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a close ally to the former president, said it was a mistake for Republicans even to insist on border policy changes because it could “give the Biden administration some kind of policy wins out on the campaign trail.”

As the border and immigration talks drag forward in the Senate, Johnson has weighed in from afar to push for sweeping measures. On social media, he has called for “transformational change to secure the border,” and pointed to a hardline bill that passed the House on a party-line vote.

As senators left Washington, they still sought to assure Ukrainians that American help was on its way. White House staff and Senate negotiations planned to work on drafting border legislation for the next two weeks in hopes that it would be ready for action when Congress returns.

Schumer told The Associated Press he was “hopeful,” but “I wouldn’t go so far as to say confident yet.” He sought to put the pressure on Republicans, saying they needed to be ready to compromise.

Yet Sen. Roger Wicker, an Alabama Republican who is a Ukraine supporter, expressed confidence that Congress would act. He alluded to the words of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, another European leader who eventually elicited robust support from the U.S. to repel an invasion.

“Americans will always do the right thing,” Wicker said. “After they’ve exhausted every other alternative.”

___

Associated Press writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

 

© Copyright 2023 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

An actor plays a part.Actor Brian Keith has been the judge on the television series "Hardcastle and McCormick," the uncle in "Family Affair," Teddy Roosevelt in the movie "The Wind and the Lion," and the father in "The Parent Trap." 

He also starred in movies including "Death

Read more

Sherman Building at the D.C. campus of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

Two federal retirement communities for disabled enlisted veterans and some officers face uncertain financial futures unless Congress and the Defense Department take steps to address budget shortfalls, the Government Accountability Office has found.

The Armed Forces Retirement Home, or AFRH, system, which operates senior living facilities in Washington, D.C., and Gulfport, Mississippi, is on a trajectory to deplete its trust fund by 2042 without intervention, according to a report published earlier this month[1] by the watchdog agency.

The system, founded in 1991 to manage the former U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home in Washington and the U.S. Naval Home in Gulfport, has the capacity to house up to 1,120 residents, but had just 611 as of September 2022.

Read Next: The US Wanted Out of the Middle East. The Middle East Had Other Ideas.[2]

A declining funding stream, gaps in residential rates versus cost of care and capital improvements have led to financial struggles, according to the GAO.

"AFRH has not achieved its goals to raise its declining occupancy or to implement its other proposals. Also, AFRH faces further financial risks from costly repairs to deteriorating facilities," GAO analysts wrote. "AFRH may continue to face financial shortfalls that in the future could affect its ability to fulfill its mission."

The homes are financed by residential fees; a 50-cent mandatory payroll deduction from active-duty enlisted service members, warrant officers and limited-duty officers; the fines and forfeitures of personnel charged with disciplinary violations; donations; and interest off the AFRH trust fund.

But the payroll deduction has not kept up with inflation and revenues from fines and forfeitures have dropped, the GAO noted, as the number of courts-martial and disciplinary actions in the services has declined.

Investment interest income also is down as a result of trust fund balances that have declined since 2010 with the opening of a new Gulfport campus following Hurricane Katrina and the complete overhaul of a residential building in D.C., according to the GAO.

"If no actions are taken, the projections show that AFRH trust fund balance is likely to continue to decline -- even if the general fund transfers are provided at the current rate into the future," the report said.

Those responsible for AFRH had sought to stabilize its financial outlook by striking a deal with private companies to redevelop 80 acres of the Washington, D.C., campus for mixed use, with more than 3,000 residential units, retail stores, offices and open space.

The deal was quashed in October, however, as the result of "rising interest rates, inflation, supply chain challenges and a struggling office market in D.C.," according to John RisCassi, AFRH's chief operating officer.

"It was clear that the financial benefit to the Home was now significantly diminished and the terms of the long-term lease were riskier to AFRH," RisCassi said in a press release.

To make ends meet, Congress has provided AFRH with general funds transfers for the past eight years. In making recommendations for the system's future financial solvency, the GAO recommended that Congress continue to support AFRH by transferring $25 million to the system over the next 20 years.

It also recommended that Congress and the Department of Defense:

  • Raise the military contribution rate, which has not increased since 1977, from $.50 to $1.00.
  • Require Reserve and National Guard[3] members, who became eligible for AFRH in 2021, to pay the military contribution.
  • And increase occupancy levels at both campuses.

The report also recommended that the system be reimbursed by Tricare[4] and Medicare for health care, since nearly all residents are eligible for medical treatment through the military treatment facilities or the Department of Veterans Affairs[5].

The system also could benefit from having a functional advisory council, GAO auditors noted. According to the report, AFRH has not had an active council since at least 2015, even though it is required by law to have an advisory board with at least one financial management expert.

In a 13-page response, RisCassi and AFRH Chief Executive Officer Stephen Rippe said they appreciated the GAO's oversight and agreed that bolstering the system's trust fund balance is necessary.

They noted a number of achievements AFRH has made in the past five years, such as increasing the trust fund balance by 62%, raising the operating budget to attract talented staff, and increasing revenues by entering into leases with nearby medical facilities.

They said adjusting the service member contribution for inflation could help bolster income, as would increasing the average fee paid for those in independent living, especially in Washington, where one of the major facilities is about to undergo an extensive renovation.

Rippe and RisCassi also noted that, in discussing the occupancy rates, the GAO did not address the COVID-19 pandemic, which reduced facility admissions, or the pending renovation, which has forced AFRH to reduce capacity and start a waiting list.

"In the coming years, we look forward to resolving the decades-long impasse over pay deductions supporting the Home; instituting new health records systems that will improve health care coordination for our residents and better facilitate reimbursement for covered services performed on site; developing an updated capital investment plan for facilities and equipment; and executing a new strategy to secure a long-term revenue stream from the Home's substantial real estate assets," they wrote.

To be eligible for the AFRH, residents must be at least 60 years or older; have spent more than half their military service as an enlisted member, warrant officer or limited-duty officer; have an honorable discharge, a service-connected disability or military retirement[6]; and be ambulatory and able to take care of themselves at the time of admission.

Residents pay a fee depending on the level of care and monthly income, beginning at the independent living level, at a cost of nearly 47% of income, for their residences, meals, health care and amenities.

Fees rise with the level of care: Those requiring memory care services pay 70% of their income, according to the GAO.

Related: Veterans Face Extended Delays for Referrals for Specialty Care Outside VA Facilities, Watchdog Finds[7]

© Copyright 2023 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[8].

Read more

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III tours the flight deck of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) with Ford Commanding Officer Capt. Rick Burgess.

Facing a growing list of attacks against U.S. forces in the Middle East, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Charles "C.Q." Brown was pressed at a recent conference on why the American military wasn't responding more aggressively.

Two decades of war in the region, a war that much of the American public is eager to move on from, have made military leaders cautious when talking about battlefields that have claimed thousands of service members' lives.

"We're being very thoughtful about the approach we take, and I do that when I provide my advice on how best to respond but also not to broaden the conflict," Brown said on stage at the Reagan National Defense Forum at the beginning of the month.

Read Next: What Does the Space Force Do? 4 Years After Its Birth, Glimpses of the Service's Mission Emerge[1]

A day later, the list grew, with Iran-backed Houthi rebels launching one of their biggest drone attacks[2] on commercial ships in the Red Sea, prompting the destroyer USS Carney to shoot down multiple drones.

That same day, U.S. forces in Iraq killed five Iran-linked militants[3] in a drone strike intended to prevent an imminent attack on American troops.

Since then, U.S. forces have faced dozens more attacks in Iraq and Syria, with the total topping 100 and at least 66 American troops suffering injuries. U.S. warships have also been called upon several more times[4] to respond to continued Houthi attacks on commercial ships, and American military involvement in protecting commercial shipping is poised to grow with the announcement of a new multinational task force to patrol the Red Sea[5], an escalation as the year draws to a close.

Despite efforts to avoid a larger war and as the U.S. watches close ally Israel's ground campaign in Gaza continue, the American military by all appearances is, yet again, getting pulled deeper and deeper into the Middle East.

Taken as a whole, events since October demonstrate that, as much as the country has sought to extract itself from the Middle East in recent years, the region is not done with the United States, and 2024 is likely to see U.S. forces still confronting threats and facing the risk of casualties.

"The fact that there are several frozen conflicts in the region that have been unresolved, neither militarily nor politically, certainly creates an enabling environment for various cycles of violence to keep repeating themselves," said Merissa Khurma, director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center. "Everyone looks to the West for leadership in resolving these conflicts because that responsibility comes with the power the United States yields, both politically and militarily."

Further, the danger of a broader, conventional Middle East war still looms.

"It's sheer good luck that we have not lost any Americans in this growing number of attacks," said Mona Yacoubian, vice president of the Middle East and North Africa Center at the U.S. Institute of Peace. "This is far from over, and I think, unfortunately, we have not yet seen what the full scope of escalation looks like."

The start of the Biden administration saw a concerted effort to turn the page on America's so-called endless wars in the Middle East and South Asia, and in turn focus more on the Indo-Pacific region and America's strategic adversary of China.

Last year, a new National Defense Strategy named China as the United States' top "pacing challenge" while placing the threats that had consumed U.S. attention in the beginning of the 21st century, including terrorism and the Middle East, on a lower tier.

President Joe Biden withdrew the last remaining U.S. troops from Afghanistan, despite warnings that came to fruition that doing so would lead to the Afghan government's collapse.

And while the administration left untouched about 2,500 troops in Iraq and about 900 troops in Syria to keep any remnants of the ISIS terrorist group at bay, Biden made a high-profile announcement in 2021 that the combat mission in Iraq was over, and officials rarely drew attention to U.S. military activities in Iraq and Syria.

Then Oct. 7 happened.

Hamas terrorists snuck across the border from the Gaza Strip to Israel, slaughtering about 1,200 people and abducting about 250 others in the bloodiest day in Israel's history. Americans were among both the dead and the hostages. The Israeli government responded by launching a war on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip that has included a blistering airstrike campaign and ground invasion.

Iranian proxy forces in the region have taken advantage of the chaos by launching a flurry of attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria and commercial shipping in the Red Sea. Israel and Hezbollah have also regularly been trading fire across the Israel-Lebanon border since Oct. 7.

The United States responded by rushing forces into the region in what officials described as an effort to deter a wider Middle East war. Two aircraft carriers and their associated strike groups steamed into the eastern Mediterranean Sea, and air defenses were bolstered throughout the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, among other elements of the buildup.

Defense officials have stressed that no assets are being taken from the Indo-Pacific region to help the buildup in the Middle East. They also argue that they remain focused on China despite Gaza, as well as the war in Ukraine before that, consuming the most immediate attention.

"We've not lost any readiness," Gen. Charles Flynn, commanding general of U.S. Army[6] Pacific, said at the Reagan forum when asked how competing priorities for weapons, particularly for the war in Ukraine, could affect his forces. "There's a lot of ways to weight your effort, and it's not just steel coming off of a production line."

Still, public attention has undeniably shifted recently, as has many U.S. leaders' rhetoric.

The Reagan National Defense Survey, released annually ahead of the conference, found the Middle East jumped as a priority for Americans in the last year. While 11% of respondents said in 2022 that the U.S. military should focus its forces in the Middle East, 31% said so this year. This year's iteration of the poll was taken weeks after the Hamas attack.

By comparison, 25% of respondents this year said the U.S. military should focus on East Asia, including China, compared to 31% last year.

When given free range to decide how to allocate U.S. military resources, poll respondents split forces fairly evenly between the Middle East and Asia. On average, respondents said about 19% of U.S. military resources should be focused on the Middle East and about 18% should be focused on East Asia.

Still, 51% said they believe China is the greatest threat to the United States, with the country retaining its perch atop the list from last year.

"It depends on what the leaders are talking about, that's what Americans are going to focus on," Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said on a panel at the Reagan forum about the poll results.

While the annual confab of military officials, lawmakers and defense contractors did not officially include any panels on the Middle East or the war in Israel, talk about the conflict permeated discussions at the Reagan Library.

During his speech at the conference, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke almost twice as long about Israel and the Middle East as he did about America's supposed priority theater of the Indo-Pacific.

"As we are working to stabilize the region, Iran is raising tensions," Austin said in his speech. "After attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria, our forces repeatedly struck facilities in Iraq and eastern Syria used by Iran's IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and by militias affiliated with Iran. We will not tolerate attacks on American personnel. These attacks must stop. And until they do, we will do what we need to do to protect our troops -- and to impose costs on those who attack them."

Even with the tit-for-tat between U.S. forces and Iran-backed militias in the region, warnings at the beginning of the war in Israel that it could escalate into an all-out war in the Middle East haven't borne out. But regional experts say the skirmishes in Iraq and Syria, the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the violence on the Israel-Lebanon border all still risk spiraling into a more conventional war that would further entangle the United States.

"Nobody wants this to escalate further because they understand how high the risks are for contagion," said the Wilson Center's Khurma, who said she's spoken to regional diplomats who have open channels of communication with Iran. "It is very delicate. The risks remain high."

Related: 5 Purple Hearts Awarded to Injured Troops After Spike in Attacks on Bases in Iraq, Syria[7]

© Copyright 2023 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[8].

Read more

More Articles …