#post office nsc rules

[claudiajcregg]

Hoo boy, I'm behind on tagged stuff. (After this, I owe the last line I've written, the 8 tv shows, and who knows what else!) But this one was rather easy, even if formatting took me longer than I thought.

Tagged by the incredibly talented @onekisstotakewithme, whose stuff you should absolutely read because she's so good. (And prolific, too!) Thank you, Ally <3

Rules: share the first lines of ten of your most recent fanfics and tag ten people. If you have written fewer than ten, don’t be shy and share anyway.

I have eleven (for now? hopefully?) and I'll put them under a cut because this might get long for my mobile peeps. (I'm not the best at first lines. Or all that follow. I noticed a pattern, lol.)

Tagging anyone who wants to do it, of course! Feel free to ignore it if you don't want to do it, or if you've been already been tagged, etc. I probably missed some posts here and there. ♥️ @miabicicletta, @ballroompink, @holy-ships-x-red-lips, @district447, @eyes-onthehorizon

From most recent to oldest. They are all for The West Wing. Will I come out of this hating my writing even more? We'll see!

still you never took your hand from mine

The idea of writing a book by herself had always felt like this thing she wasn’t sure she wanted to do, at least not at that point in her life. 

The (in)famous memoir fic. CJ starts writing a memoir while pregnant with her first child.

haunted by the notion somewhere there's a love in flames

Filomena Ristorante was an enchanting establishment she hadn’t heard of until earlier this afternoon. 

Set during CJ and Danny's business dinner in S1. It's two chapters long!)

just your smile lit a 60-watt bulb in my house that was darkened for days

When the President summoned her to the Oval Office on Tuesday, the last thing C.J. was expecting was for him to invite her to their Thanksgiving festivities up in the Residence — that was, if she didn’t have plans already.

Thanksgiving 2006 in the Residence, with a dash of thanks and trivia. CJ/Danny, with Jed/Abbey, Josh/Donna, Charlie/Zoey

don't want you to go but I'll be okay

The flight back to Andrews Air Force Base had been pushed back until the morning for various reasons; not least of which had been avoiding a repeat of everyone’s protests on the way to Portland due to the late departure time.

C.J. finds some unexpected closure when she goes out for dinner during the Portland trip. (Yes, I'm copying some of the summary for some of these, lol.)

I'll be your friend in the daylight again

If C.J. was asked to name whatever meetings she had been a part of this week, she would fail.

C.J. and her complicated feelings about her NSC card resurface once Josh gets his during the Santos administration. (No, but I'm actually surprised by how accurate and succinct some of these summaries are.)

catch my pieces as they fall apart

His beautiful wife was sad and exhausted and likely sick, and Danny didn’t know how to take her pain away.

After her father passes away, C.J. grapples with grief and what her future might hold.

say it's here where our pieces fall in place

The sun over the plains was unforgiving on this late winter day.

A series of glimpses into C.J. and Danny’s lives, together and apart, from 1998 to 2008. It's 11 chapters!

we could be the way forward and I know I'll pay for it

The second the call with Hogan disconnected, she stopped walking around the secluded garden area and was hit with a cold breeze she wasn’t prepared for.

St. Augustine, FL; spring of 1998. C.J. wrestles with her burgeoning feelings for Danny when she runs into him outside a campaign event.

maybe everything's turning out how it should be

This wasn’t the same without Leo.

As a way to honor his late mentor, Josh brings back Leo’s Big Block of Cheese tradition during the Santos Administration. Unbeknownst to him, he ends up having a special crackpot meeting of his own. (This has implied CJ/Danny and Josh/Donna.)

all's well that ends well to end up with you

The sun was setting over the small mountain range in the distance, coloring the sky with a pink-orange hue that was breathtaking. 

C.J. and Danny find a moment of quiet in a hectic day and reflect about how they got to where they are. Their wedding. It's set after their wedding.

... and +1, because I felt bad leaving it behind

maybe we'll sleep here covered in star shine

At four in the morning, the sky was beautifully dark with just the slightest hint of the day that would soon start on the horizon. 

On a sleepless night, C.J. finds herself staring at the stars and reminiscing about her childhood.

[viralbake]

Post office savings schemes are the favourite of low-income and risk-free investors, though there is no such rule that low-income generators can only invest. This highly stable savings scheme serves both as a healthy investment to secure your future wealth and offers income tax benefits under Section 80C. So, here are all the schemes that offer such lucrativeness- Public provident fund or PPF, 5-year post office deposit scheme, National Savings Certificate or NSC, Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana or SSY, and Senior Citizen Savings Scheme or SCSS.

[esonetwork]

The Earth Station One Podcast - The 2022 Geek Holiday Gift Guide

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/the-earth-station-one-podcast-the-2022-geek-holiday-gift-guide/

The Earth Station One Podcast - The 2022 Geek Holiday Gift Guide

Brace yourself! The holiday season is coming and Mike, Mike, Mary Ogle, Richard Ewell, and Kevin Eldridge have some gift ideas worthy of the ruling house of Westeros. All this, along with Angela’s A Geek Girls Take, Ashley’s Box Office Buzz, and Shout Outs!

We want to hear from you! Feedback is always welcome. Please write to us at feedback@earthstationone.com and subscribe and rate the show on Apple Podcast, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon Music, wherever fine podcasts are found, and now we can be found on our own YouTube Channel.

Table of Contents 0:00:00 Show Open /Round 1 & 2 of the 2022 Geek Holiday Gift Guide 0:48:12 Box Office Buzz 0:50:20 Round 3 & 4 of the 2022 Geek Holiday Gift Guide 1:32:48 Round 5 of the 2022 Geek Holiday Gift Guide 1:55:00 A Geek Girls Take 1:57:12 Show Close

Gifts Mentioned In this Episode Mary Ogle Moon Rocket Coin Bank with One Spaceman The Iron Giant: Signature Edition Ultimate Collector’s Edition Blue Ray Jim Lee Batman Collection Lego Set Bean Box Coffee + Chocolate Tasting Box The Folio Society JAWS

Kevin Eldridge The Illustrated AL Danger Will Robinson: The Full Mumy Beyond Bigfoot and Nessie Someday Is Today Sinkhole

Richard Ewell Gore Noir Magazine NOPE -Steelbook- Best Buy Exclusive Sun-Man and the Rulers of the Sun (Target Exclusive) Pinsploitation Universal Studios Orlando

Michael Gordon “What Child Is This: A Sherlock Holmes Christmas Adventure” by Bonnie MacBird with illustrations by Frank Cho “TCM Underground: 50 Must See Movies” by Millie de Chirico and Quatoyiah Murray Storyworth Exclusive 40th Anniversary Wrath of Khan Pop Package Drunken Dragon Hotel

Mike Faber Geeky Jerseys Lights, Camera, Accordion!: Eye-Popping Photographs of “Weird Al” Yankovic, 1981–2006 A Die Hard Christmas : The Illustrated Holiday Classic Fellowship of the Maps State Art Hello – Will You – I Do – Standard Style – Map Canvas Print, Anniversary Gift

Links Earth Station One on Apple Podcasts Earth Station One on Stitcher Radio Earth Station One on Spotify Past Episodes of The Earth Station One Podcast The ESO Network Patreon The New ESO Network TeePublic Store ESO Network Patreon Angela’s A Geek Girl’s Take Ashley’s Box Office Buzz Michelle’s Iconic Rock Talk Show The Earth Station One Website NSC Live TV Tifosi Optical The New Earth Station One YouTube Channel EvisionArts Flopcast Night of the Nerdy Laser Podcast Bride of FrankenCon Snow Series by Bobby Nash Elton John’s Final American Concert on Disney+

Promos Tifosi Optics Modern Musicology Earth Station Who The ESO Network Patreon

If you would like to leave feedback or a comment on the show please feel free to email us at feedback@earthstationone.com

[hummingzone]

Post Office Joint Account Rules: Govt issues clarifications on NSC, SCSS and other schemes – Check details

In the case of SCSS, an individual may open an account in an individual capacity, or jointly with a spouse. As an investor in post office savings schemes, you may be holding them as a single account or as a joint account. The government has come out with clarifications for investors holding joint accounts in post office savings schemes. Presently, the Government Savings Promotion General Rules,…

[insanemindinsaneworld]

Become Independent in your Financial Investment

Usually this time around the year, we think about investments. These investments are usually tax saving investment and many people do not think beyond this. However, you should know there are two ways to become richer — first, earn more money (obviously) and second, save more wisely.

While no blog can help you achieve the first objective — please help yourself achieve this!

Coming to second objective: I have worked in financial sector for more than a decade and can tell you saving wisely works for persons in all income brackets. In series of blogs, I am going to guide you my way of managing my own portfolio. I still consider myself as callow investor; however, I am hoping my limited experience can be a good starting point to you.

So, what are your options?

Before we address this question, you need to know what your risk appetite is. Ok, no complex theories, just answer the following:

Q1. Are you saving for some purpose?

No, I am free bird

I have liabilities, but no particular goal in mind

Oh, yes of course

Q2. Are you comfortable investing in stock market?

Very comfortable

I can try

No, not at all

Now coming back to original question, following are the easily available options:

Bank Savings Account — why this is even an ‘investment’? Because some people still like to keep significant in hand cash, yes in 2021… And even after demonetisation!

Bank Fixed Deposits or Recurring Deposit — Well known conventional sort of investment

Mutual Funds — This one comes with lot of options: Liquid, Debt, Equity or Hybrid

National Saving Certificate (NSC) — Post office savings scheme

Gold or Silver — Solid physical investment in gold or silver

Stock Market — Direct equity investment through Demat account

NPS or PPF — Long term investment with guaranteed returns

Real Estate — Capital Gains through investment in property; involves high amount of investment

Insurance Plans — Traditional or Unit Linked plans with savings element

But why I asked two ‘stupid’ questions above then? Because your investment choices are related to above two ‘stupid’ questions. That also brings us to our second section.

How should I choose?

One should choose their investments in view of their goals and risks involved in the investment. Ohh yeah… That’s why those questions! Anything new here?

Yes, ‘diversification’ is a fancy word in investment world and desirable too. Hence, ideally you should invest in multiple instruments. But how? Here you go…

My suggestion would be to categorise investment and invest as follows:

If your answer to ‘stupid’ questions is both 1’s: First of all compliments for feeling like a free bird. Now, ideally all your investment can’t be in stock market, so basis your age, you may apply following thumb rule:

Category 1: Gold/ Silver & Equity (Equity Mutual Fund plus Real Estate) = (95 — Your Age)%

Category 2: Debt (PPF or NPS, Debt Mutual Funds, Bank Deposits, NSC) = (Your Age)%

Category 3: Liquid Funds (Saving Bank Account, Liquid Mutual Funds) = 5%

If your answer to ‘stupid’ questions is both 2’s, or 12, or 21, or 31, or 32: You are a wise kind of person, who wants to take calculated risk. You may possibly have loans or other expenses to bear, hence, following change in thumb rule for you:

Category 1: Gold/ Silver & Equity (Equity Mutual Fund plus Real Estate) = (75 — Your Age)%

Category 2: Debt (PPF or NPS, Debt Mutual Funds, Bank Deposits, NSC) = (Your Age+10)%

Category 3: Liquid Funds (Saving Bank Account, Liquid Mutual Funds) = 15%

If your answer to not-so-‘stupid’ questions is both 3’s, or 13, or 23: You are risk averse kind of investor and would like to keep maximum investment in Category 2 above. However, do keep 5% to 15% liquid portfolio (basis your liabilities).

Additional Point: For all those who have any particular short term goal in mind for their investment (say within 3–4 years horizon), your preferable investment would be Category 2 or Large Cap Mutual Funds. For long term goals — just follow the above suggestions! That’s what we all are here for.

Final Points

The above suggestion are broad indications only. Basically to give you comfort on how far you can go in each category. It will be very difficult to maintain these percentages at all point in times, so don’t panic if you are here or there a bit.

Managing your own portfolio may seem time consuming initially but it is much more rewarding in long term. Most of the investment agents are driven by commissions, and rightly so because it’s their living! But I can assure you, if in your hands, your investments can earn much more. It’s like your first new car… Somebody might be a good driver but you would like to drive yourself because there is no other way you can learn to drive it!

By now you should ask one question — where the hell is insurance? Well, that’s tricky. That needs lot of more writing. I will cover that in my next blog.

And I will also cover Mutual Funds, Stock Market, NPS. I can’t think of more. In case you have any more topics for me to cover, please comment.

[phroyd]

 ... would explain Trump’s sudden withdrawal of U.S. forces in Syria and puts a target squarely on Jared Kushner’s back for providing the opening to Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi’s murder at the Saudi embassy in Istanbul in October of last year.

It would also expose a U.S. president as having been blackmailed by another head of state into abandoning our Syrian Kurdish allies to protect his son-in-law.

The UK’s Daily Mail released this story at midnight based on an article that was published late last night in the Spectator, published by the owners of the UK’s The Daily Telegraph.

The Spectator has a paywall, but you may be able to read the full article once.

I hope it isn’t true.  

And I say that because I hate the thought that a U.S. president’s closest advisor, a U.S. citizen and WH employee, gave the green light to a WP reporter’s (Khashoggi’s) arrest, especially if it led to Khashoggi’s brutal murder.

You may recall that Washington Post reporter, Jamal Khashoggi, a staunch human rights activist and once friend-turned critic of the ruling Saudi royal family, was killed and dismembered inside the Saudi embassy in Istanbul, Turkey in October 2018.

The Central Intelligence Agency and other Western governments believe that Saudi Crown Prince and friend of Jared Kushner, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), ordered Khashoggi’s killing.

Khashoggi was a legal resident of the U.S., educated at Indiana University, with children who are U.S. citizens, and was seeking to become a U.S. citizen himself when he was murdered.

Jared Kushner gave permission to Saudi ruler Mohammad bin Salman to arrest Jamal Khashoggi before he was killed and dismembered, a whistleblower claims.

However, Turkish intelligence intercepted the call and President Recep Erdogan then used the information to force President Trump to remove his troops from northern Syria, according to the Spectator.

You may also recall that Trump announced in December 2018, 2 months after Khashoggi’s murder,  that he was pulling U.S. forces out of Syria.  That didn’t go over well.

Trump calls withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ‘no surprise’ amid mounting backlash

The report also mentions that a source also told the writer at the Spectator that there are 4 NEW whistleblowers, including one whose reported events have nothing to do with the Ukraine saga.  It’s possible.  The attorney representing the initial, unnamed Ukraine whistleblower has stated he is representing “multiple whistleblowers.”

The report claims that investigators on the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee are aware of these allegations and are planning to dig further into them while pursuing the impeachment inquiry over Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

It also claims that the number of intelligence whistleblowers who are willing to give evidence to the impeachment committee is seven.

The three already known are the original anonymous CIA officer, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Tim Morrison, the NSC’s director for European and Russian Affairs.

The Khashoggi whistleblower takes that tally up to four, meaning there are three others waiting in the wings.

If this story has legs, the open House Intelligence Committee hearings could turn out to contain the most explosive charges ever leveled against a sitting president and his family, or a government official in any capacity, when you consider the aftershocks the alleged phone calls between Kushner with MBS and Trump phone and Erdogan set in motion.

Again, I hope this story isn’t true.  If it is, it’s horrifying.  We’ll have to see if any other sources confirm this story over the next couple of weeks.

UPDATE:

I shared this story — that I thought no one would see at 2:45 am CST — simply because it was intriguing and, based on past stories from many sources including the WP, NYT, Newsweek and others since Khashoggi’s murder, seems possible.

This new story just happened to pop up in a news feed and had enough pieces that connect — with the Kushner-MBS history, the Syrian troop withdrawal (including last year’s attempt by Trump), whistleblowers, and known WH malfeasance to date — that I considered it shareable, with obvious caveats:

Jared Kushner Still Defended Saudi Crown Prince After Khashoggi Murder, After 'Friends' Exchanged Text Messages for 2 Years: Report

www.newsweek.com/...

Trump’s unsuccessful attempt to withdraw from Syria 2 months after Khashoggi’s murder in October 2018.

December 2018:

Trump calls withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ‘no surprise’ amid mounting backlash

www.washingtonpost.com/...

I love the DKos community and have been a participant here for many years.   I value everyone’s opinions and respect your right to your own opinions, whatever they may be.  Thank you.  

Phroyd

[poonamranius]

Post Office Saving Scheme Rules Changed : PPF ट्रांजैक्शन और निकासी सीमा के नियम बदले, जानिए नए नियम

Post Office Saving Scheme Rules Changed PPF ट्रांजैक्शन और निकासी सीमा के नियम बदले, जानिए नए नियम : पोस्ट ऑफिस में खाताधारकों के लिए इंडिया पोस्ट (India Post) के पास खुशखबरी है, अब तक एक दिन में सिर्फ 5000 रुपये की निकासी को ही बढ़ाया गया है. डाकघर में खाताधारकों के लिए एक अच्छी खबर है. डाकघर ने कई नियम बदले हैं। भारतीय डाक ने डाकघर बचत योजनाओं (Post Office Schemes) में पैसे निकालने की सीमा बढ़ा दी है। इससे कार्यालय बचत योजनाएं बैंकों से मुकाबला कर सकेंगी और लंबी अवधि में डाकघर की जमा राशि में वृद्धि होगी। Post Office Saving Scheme Rules Changed एक दिन में निकाल सकेंगे 20,000 रुपये (Post Office Saving Scheme Rules Changed) अब खाताधारक ग्रामीण डाक सेवा (Post Office Scheme) की शाखा में एक दिन में 20,000 रुपये निकाल सकते हैं, पहले यह सीमा 5,000 रुपये थी। इसके अलावा कोई भी ब्रांच पोस्टमास्टर (बीपीएम) एक दिन में किसी खाते में 50,000 रुपये से अधिक का नकद जमा लेनदेन स्वीकार नहीं करेगा। इसका मतलब है कि एक दिन में एक खाते में 50,000 रुपये से अधिक का नकद लेनदेन नहीं किया जा सकता है। पीपीएफ, केवीपी, एनएससी के लिए बदले नियम नए नियमों के मुताबिक अब बचत खातों के अलावा सार्वजनिक भविष्य निधि (PPF), वरिष्ठ नागरिक बचत योजना (SCSS), मासिक आय योजना (MIS), किसान विकास पत्र (KVP), राष्ट्रीय बचत प्रमाणपत्र (NSC) में चेक जमा के जरिए ) योजनाएं। स्वीकृति या निकासी फॉर्म के माध्यम से की जाएगी। कितना जरूरी है मिनिमम बैलेंस? आपको बता दें कि डाकघर बचत योजना (Post Office Saving Scheme) पर 4% ब्याज (Interest) मिलता है, डाकघर में खोले गए बचत खाते के लिए न्यूनतम 500 रुपये रखना आवश्यक है। यदि आपके खाते में राशि 500 ​​रुपये से कम है। तो खाता रखरखाव शुल्क के रूप में 100 रुपये काटे जाएंगे। डाकघर की योजना - – डाकघर बचत खाता - – 5 साल का डाकघर आवर्ती जमा खाता - – डाकघर सावधि जमा खाता - – डाकघर मासिक आय योजना खाता - – वरिष्ठ नागरिक बचत योजना - – 15 साल का लोक भविष्य निधि खाता - – सुकन्या समृद्धि खाता - – राष्ट्रीय बचत प्रमाणपत्र - – किसान विकास पत्र डाकघर बचत योजनाएं - योजना ब्याज (प्रतिशत/वार्षिक) - डाकघर बचत खाता 4.0 - 1-वर्षीय टीडी खाता 5.5 - 2-वर्षीय टीडी खाता 5.5 - 5-वर्षीय टीडी खाता 6.7 - 5-वर्षीय आरडी 5.8 - वरिष्ठ नागरिक बचत योजना 7.4 - पीपीएफ 7.1 - किसान विकास पत्र 6.9 - सुकन्या समृद्धि खाता 7.6 Read the full article

[moneycafe]

PPF, SCSS, KVP, NSC schemes deposit and cash transaction rules in GDS branches modified

PPF, SCSS, KVP, NSC schemes deposit and cash transaction rules in GDS branches modified

The opening of PPF, SCSS, NSC, KVP, and MIS accounts has already been allowed in GDS Branch Post Offices. The maximum limit for cash transactions in post offices has been increased by the government. The cash deposit limit and the cash transaction limit have now been increased to Rs 50,000 in a day from the earlier cap of Rs 25,000 in a day. The government had recently issued a note regarding the…

[guardiannews24]

PPF, SCSS, KVP, NSC schemes deposit and cash transaction rules in GDS branches modified

PPF, SCSS, KVP, NSC schemes deposit and cash transaction rules in GDS branches modified

The opening of PPF, SCSS, NSC, KVP, and MIS accounts has already been allowed in GDS Branch Post Offices. The maximum limit for cash transactions in post offices has been increased by the government. The cash deposit limit and the cash transaction limit have now been increased to Rs 50,000 in a day from the earlier cap of Rs 25,000 in a day. The government had recently issued a note regarding the…

[political-fluffle]

How Did a Trump Loyalist Come to Be Named NSA General Counsel—And What Should Biden Do About It? “Earlier this week, the Washington Post broke the story that Michael Ellis—a former staffer for Rep. Devin Nunes and current National Security Council (NSC) official—has been selected as general counsel of the National Security Agency. This set off alarm bells among commentators and those familiar with the agency, in part because it comes in the same week in which Trump summarily fired the top civilian leadership of the Department of Defense and installed loyalists and cronies in their places. (…) (…) selecting Ellis as NSA general counsel appears to be an attempt to improperly politicize an important career position. Relatedly, it appears to be an effort to “burrow,” or improperly convert a political appointee into a career position. And to make matters worse, the ample public record suggests that Ellis is particularly ill suited to discharge the essential functions of the office. While important details remain unclear, media accounts include numerous indications of irregularity in the process by which Ellis was selected for the job, including interference by the White House. At a minimum, the evidence of possible violations of civil service rules demand immediate investigation by Congress and the inspectors general of the Department of Defense and the NSA.” This is infiltration, this was an order from Putin.

[khalilhumam]

Stuck in the middle with you: Resourcing the Coast Guard for global competition

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/stuck-in-the-middle-with-you-resourcing-the-coast-guard-for-global-competition/

Stuck in the middle with you: Resourcing the Coast Guard for global competition

By Michael Sinclair, Lindsey W. Ford The 2017 National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defense Strategy laid down a marker in arguing that U.S. agencies should shift their focus toward great power competition, specifically with respect to China and Russia. Departments and agencies have done an admirable job in beginning to make needed adjustments to address this mandate. Yet in some cases, it is unclear which agency is best equipped to address the multi-layered challenges posed by Beijing, which often cross bureaucratic boundaries and the civilian-military divide. This is particularly true in the maritime domain, where the U.S. Navy is not always best positioned to deal with some of China’s worrisome actions, including excessive maritime claims, island-building escapades, aggressive illegal fishing, and general disregard for the maritime rules-based order. The U.S. Coast Guard is, however, uniquely positioned to address many of these problems. To do so, however, the Coast Guard will need to be resourced and postured to play a larger role in deterring maritime competition.

A broad mandate

Unlike the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force — which each have a single-mission focus — the Coast Guard has a sweeping mission set that includes defense readiness as well as maritime law enforcement, security, and governance operations. More Swiss-Army knife than Ka-Bar, what the Coast Guard lacks in “lethality” it more than compensates for in multi-mission flexibility. This makes the Coast Guard a critical tool of national power. The Coast Guard’s broad suite of operational authorities and decades of experience in working with partner nations make it perfectly positioned to slot quite neatly into an important space between diplomacy, largely led by the U.S. Department of State, and lethality, which is the clear purview of the Department of Defense (DoD) services and their supported regional combatant commanders. And it is precisely this space that can give the United States an important edge in countering Chinese military aspirations, especially in the Pacific region. Deterring Chinese coercion of U.S. partners, and checking its gray-zone tactics, is not simply about allied reassurance. Competing in the gray zone is also essential to push back on provocative Chinese behavior quickly and forcefully, before it escalates. This will require a persistent U.S. maritime presence, not only to deter coercion, but also to train partner nations on maritime security and sovereignty protection operations, as well as participate in joint defense and security exercises. Many of these Coast Guard-like operations — which comprise the vast majority of the competition continuum short of the use of armed force — are activities for which the DoD is neither particularly well equipped, nor particularly interested in doing. This will be increasingly true in a more budget-constrained environment, because these day-to-day activities pull resources, may diminish readiness, and can distract from DoD’s core mission: preparing to, and if necessary, delivering lethal force to convincingly respond to military aggression. Alternatively, the Coast Guard is not focused on delivering lethality. Instead, Coast Guard forces are focused on core competencies that include sovereignty enforcement, specifically with respect to exclusive economic zones; maritime law enforcement, including the interdiction of contraband; and as necessary, a defense-oriented maritime security posture. It is these very competencies that our allies in the Pacific are so interested in acquiring, because they are the very skills necessary to more effectively counter the vast majority of China’s aggressive, gray-zone regional maritime activities.

Show me the money

The real challenge, however, is the same one the Coast Guard always faces: money, money, money. How can the Coast Guard step up to help meet the challenges of a great power competition mandate when confronted with competing demands for Coast Guard services the world over, including importantly here at home in the United States? The Coast Guard’s organic budget is relatively small, about $12 billion annually for the last several years. It does, however, often receive some reimbursable funding from the DoD along with small apportionments of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. This OCO funding flows primarily to the Middle East to support the Coast Guard’s Patrol Forces Southwest Asia task group in the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations. This $12 billion budget, which flows through the Homeland Security Appropriations Committees in Congress and not the Defense Appropriations Committees, funds a staggeringly diverse set of Coast Guard operations and requirements: 11 statutory missions, Coast Guard personnel costs, military retirement pay, and shipbuilding and acquisitions. While the Coast Guard has had some long-needed success in building up its shipbuilding accounts over the last few years, it has not had similar success in obtaining enhanced funding for Coast Guard operations and maintenance, despite a requested increase of nearly $200 million identified for “defense readiness” in the president’s FY21 budget proposal. Indeed, the Coast Guard never enjoyed the budget growth that the DoD services received in the opening years of the Trump administration. As a result, it has experienced significantly diminished purchasing power as its flat budget has been eroded by inflation. Herein lies the rub for the Coast Guard. Increasing the operational tempo of the Coast Guard’s overseas operations, specifically in the Pacific, would require resources the service simply doesn’t have. This is unlikely to change for two reasons. First, the Coast Guard is housed within a cabinet department — the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — that is by definition focused on homeland threats rather than overseas missions. Second, the DoD has little incentive to see its own operations and maintenance funding diverted toward overseas Coast Guard missions it views as tangential to the department’s core priorities. And for the Coast Guard’s part, its need to recapitalize its aged fleet, address outdated information technology capabilities, and deal with shore infrastructure requirements, will all make it hard to shift precious resources towards new operations. None of this changes the fact that there is an increasing mission gap in the Pacific, which could foreseeably grow elsewhere in the world, as China’s operational reach and ambitions expand.

Increasing the operational tempo of the Coast Guard’s overseas operations, specifically in the Pacific, would require resources the service simply doesn’t have.

Committing to the long haul

The primary solution is relatively straightforward, so much so that it’s a bit cliché. As Tom Wolfe wrote in the great “The Right Stuff,” “No bucks. No Buck Rogers.” If countering China in the Pacific is truly an important component of the United States’ great power competition posture, the Coast Guard should be funded appropriately to help DoD execute that mission. Where those funds come from — whether the defense committees, through DHS, or some other source — is less important than wide acknowledgment that these Coast Guard-type operations serve as force multipliers in addressing the needs of our regional partners and deterring further gray-zone aggression. Simply put, for a relatively meager influx of operations and maintenance funds, at least in DoD terms (where the unit cost of a single Ford–class aircraft carrier is more than the Coast Guard’s entire annual budget), the Coast Guard could provide substantially more services in the Pacific. Enhanced funding in the range of $200-$500 million would translate to improved readiness and availability of its National Security Cutter (NSC) fleet and other Coast Guard assets capable of operating deep into the Pacific theater. Importantly, this funding might actually save money for DoD. Using the Coast Guard to conduct joint military exercises and patrols, capacity building, and international training is far cheaper than using a higher-end Navy ship to perform the same missions. Further, the Coast Guard should consider serious discussions with the United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) combatant commander as to whether the expeditionary patrol forces structure the Coast Guard has employed quite effectively in the Middle East could be incorporated in the Pacific theater. The Coast Guard has already shifted some of its focus to the Pacific theater, has recently deployed new cutters to the region, and is exploring new operational concepts to facilitate extended Pacific operations. Of course, the Pacific is not the Arabian Gulf, and the tyranny of distance is a serious factor to consider. But, as compared to Navy vessels, Coast Guard cutters tend to have long legs and their crews are used to operating independently. As former Navy officer Blake Herzinger has argued, a dedicated task group of Coast Guard cutters located in theater could be a powerful tool to check Chinese action as well as model responsible maritime behavior. As a corollary, as the Coast Guard plans for its Offshore Patrol Cutter acquisition, it should consider whether it could optimize a sub-class of these vessels for these types of defense-flavored operations in the Pacific. Finally, it may also be time for the Coast Guard to consider independent foreign basing options for the first time in recent memory, perhaps with America’s close ally and “Five Eyes” partner, Australia. A Coast Guard detachment in Australia would not only provide for an additional Pacific-centric staging area, besides existing Coast Guard locations in Hawaii and Guam, but would also assist with Coast Guard strategic icebreaking operations directed towards Antarctica, which is itself becoming more and more relevant in the era of great power competition. A relatively small influx of additional funds, coupled with a renewed focus on contemplating how and where the Coast Guard could offer added value in managing maritime competition, could play an important role in checking China’s regional maritime aspirations and deterring future conflict. But, this will take more than dabbling. It will require a real commitment in terms of budget prioritization, creative force posturing, and interoperability. As it is with most things, the Coast Guard should strive to be Semper Paratus in making this commitment. The views expressed are the author’s alone and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or the U.S. Government.

[quikkloan]

How to Save Income Tax in India?

When it comes to income tax, people view it as a financial burden and lack of knowledge about tax-planning adds to the stress. A majority of the taxpayers in the country struggle hard to find a perfect tax-saving scheme to reap the benefits. Understand your risk appetite first and then look for a scheme that suits your needs. There are a host of legitimate ways of saving tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whether you are a salaried individual or an entrepreneur or whether you make a rental income, or earn an income from your investments, you have to pay taxes to the government. To help you in this regard, Section 80C, 80D, 80E and 80G of the Income Tax Act list the ways you can save on taxes. These include: Tax saving Mutual Funds (ELSS), Fixed Deposit, Public Provident Fund, National Pension System, National Saving Certificate, Health Insurance Premiums, Senior Citizen Savings Scheme, Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, Home Loan Repayment and Tuition Fee Payment under section 80C of the Income Tax Act: Tax Deductions up to Rs.1.5 lakh Medical Insurance Premiums under Section 80D of the Income Tax Act: Tax Deductions up to Rs.1lakh Interest paid on Home Loans taken by first-time borrowers Under Section 80EE of the Income Tax Act:Tax Deductions up to Rs.50,000. Also, interest paid on education loan for higher education:No limit is set Donations made to Charitable Organizations under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act: For donations above ₹2,000 to qualify as a tax deduction, the contribution has to be made using other modes of payment. The various contributions are eligible for a deduction of up to either 100% or 50%, with or without restriction, under Section 80G. A House Rent Allowance (HRA) as a component of your salary under Section 80GG of the Income Tax Act: Tax Deductions up to Rs.60,000 The interest earned on a savings bank account under Section 80TTA of the Income Tax Act:Tax Deductions up to Rs.10,000 Different-abled individuals or a family member with a disability to claim tax benefits under Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act: Tax Deductions up to Rs.1,25,000 Deductions on medical expenses incurred to treat specific ailments Under Section 80DDB of the Income Tax Act: Tax Deductions up to Rs.1lakh Individuals who have been certified to be at least 40% disabled by relevant medical authorities according to government rules under Section 80U of the Income Tax Act: Tax Deductions up to Rs.1,25,000 Individuals to claim tax deductions on contributions made to political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and electoral trusts under Section 80GGC of the Income Tax Act:100% of your contribution is eligible to qualify as a deduction Read Also - How to File Income Tax Return

Save Up to Rs.1.5 lakh Under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act

Section 80C of the Income Tax allows you to save up to Rs.1.5 lakh, maximum amongst all tax saving schemes. So, let’s know more about the same in this post. 

Best Tax Savings Investments Under Section 80C at a Glance

Investment SchemesReturnsLock-in PeriodTax Saver Fixed Deposit6%-7%5 YearsEquity Linked Savings Scheme FundsVary from Fund to Fund3 YearsPublic Provident Fund7%-8%15 YearsNational Saving Certificate7%-8%5 YearsNational Pension System12%-14%Till RetirementSenior Citizen Savings Scheme8.7%5 YearsEmployee Provident Fund8.50%It can be closed while quitting job permanently. It can be transferred while changing companies till retirement.Home Loan RepaymentNAThere is no lock-in period in a home loan. Usually, a home loan can be availed for 30 yearsPayment of Tuition FeesNANASukanya Samriddhi Yojana8.5%NA

How to Save Income Tax in India: All You Need to Know

Tax Saver Fixed Deposits: 5-year tax-saver FDs allow you to claim a deduction of up to Rs.1.5 lakh. These deposits have a fixed rate of interest, currently between 7%-8%. The Interest portion on FDs is taxable.   Equity Linked Savings Scheme Funds: ELSS is a type of mutual fund, which invests a minimum of 80% in equity funds. These mutual funds come with a 3-year lock-in period with returns subject to Long term Capital Gains Tax at 10% with an exemption limit of Rs.1 lakh.   Public Provident Fund: PPF is a government-linked savings scheme with a lock-in period of 15 years. It can easily be availed at many banks and post offices in India, giving tax benefits of up to Rs.1.5 lakh on the Interest.   National Saving Certificate: NSC is launched by the government, primarily used for small as well as income tax savings. It comes with two fixed maturity periods, i.e 5 years and 10 years along with a fixed rate of interest. It can easily be opened in a post office with an Interest portion of giving the tax benefit of up to Rs.1.5 lakh.   National Pension System: It is a defined contribution pension system in which the contributions are invested in a mix of assets and the retirement corpus is dependent on the returns from those assets. Under NPS, an investor can open two accounts-Tier l and Tier ll. On turning 60, an investor can exit from the NPS but 40% of the pension wealth has to be utilised for the purchase of an annuity. This deduction is available under Section 80CCD up to Rs 1.5 lakh for contributions to NPS. Senior Citizen Savings Scheme: It is a popular small savings scheme meant for senior citizens. It has a maturity period of 5 years and helps in earning a regular income in retirement year. Any number of accounts can be opened in any post office subject to a maximum investment limit of Rs.15 lakh by adding balance in all accounts. The account can be extended for 3 years after maturity. Contribution to the SCSS is tax deductible up to Rs 1.5 lakh.   Employee Provident Fund: Under the Employee Provident Fund Act, 12% of the pay of employees in the organised sector is deducted towards the Employees Provident Fund. This deduction counts towards the Rs 1.5 lakh limit under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act. Home Loan Repayment: If you have taken a home loan, the part of EMI that goes towards repaying the principal amount is eligible for tax deductions. The amount you pay as interest does not qualify for tax deductions in this section. Payment of Tuition Fees: You can claim tax deductions up to ₹1.5 lakh on tuition fees paid for your child's education. This benefit is only available to individual parents or guardians and a maximum of two children per individual. The deduction does not depend on the class of the child. However, it must be a full-time education course in an Indian school, college or university. Parents of adopted children, unmarried individuals and divorced parents can also claim these benefits. Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana: Parents of a girl child below the age of 10 can get this deduction. This account has a tenure of 21 years or until the girl marries after turning 18. The investments made on the Principal for this scheme are eligible for tax deduction up to Rs.1.5 lakh.  Now that you know about the tax savings schemes, it is also important for you to know your risk appetite and then plan your finances for maximum tax benefits.  Here are a few recommendations based on your risk appetite: High Risk Appetite: If you are an aggressive investor and are looking for high returns along with tax benefits under Section 80C, you can consider investing a total of Rs.1.5 lakh per year in ELSS. It is a tax saving mutual fund that has the potential to offer double-digit returns. In other words, you can avail tax benefits in the short-term and earn good returns in the long-term. Medium Risk Appetite: If you have a moderate risk appetite, you can invest a portion of your money in ELSS and the rest in Public Provident Fund (PPF) and/or tax-saving fixed deposits. This strategy gives you the required tax benefits under Section 80C and also helps you balance your risk and returns. Low Risk Appetite: If you are totally risk-averse, you can invest in tax saving fixed deposits or PPF. Here, you can avail the tax deductions of Rs.1.5 lakh under Section 80C and the risk exposure on these avenues is minimal. However, these avenues offer fixed returns, the rate of return can be quite low (just between 6-8%). This can be a problem if you take inflation into consideration.   How to Apply for Tax Saving Schemes You can anytime open the account either in a bank branch or post office. Almost every bank and post office in the country offers these tax saving schemes. Just check your eligibility and bring all the required documents to apply easily for these tax savings schemes.  Eligibility Criteria and Documents Required of Tax Saving Schemes  Tax Saving SchemesEligibility CriteriaDocuments RequiredTax Saver Fixed Deposits-Residents -Hindu undivided families Identity Proof: -Passport PAN card -Voter ID card -Driving licence -Government ID card - Senior citizen ID card Address Proof:  -Passport -Telephone bill -Electricity bill -Bank Statement with ChequeCertificate/ ID card issued by Post office Equity Linked Savings Scheme Funds- Residents - Hindu undivided familiesKYC DocumentsPublic Provident FundAny Indian Citizen -Identity Proof -Address Proof -PAN Card -Aadhaar Card -Passport Size Photographs -Pay-in-Slip (available at bank branch/post office) Nomination FormNational Saving Certificate- The individual must be an Indian citizen. - There is no age limit for individuals in order to purchase a certificate. - Non-resident Indians cannot invest in NSC. - Investments can be made with another adult or individuals can buy an NSC on behalf of a minor.Identity Proof: -Passport -Permanent Account Number (PAN) Card, -Voter ID -Driving licence -Senior Citizen ID or Government ID for verification. Address Proof: -Passport, -Telephone bill, -Electricity bill -Bank statement along with a cheque as well as a Certificate or an ID card that has been issued by the Post OfficeThe investor must submit a photograph. -NSC Application FormNational Pension SystemAny citizen of India between the age of 18 to 65 can open NPS account by visiting any POP-SPIdentity Proof: Passport, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card , Voter ID , Driving Licence, Utility Bills Address Proof: Passport, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card , Voter ID , Driving Licence, Utility Bills Senior Citizen Savings Scheme- An individual who has attained the age of 60 years or above at the time of opening an SCSS account.Individuals who have attained the age of 55 years old, but are below the age of 60 years old and have retired on superannuation are eligible to open an SCSS account. - Individuals who have attained the age of 55 years old and have retired before the implementation of the SCSS rules are eligible under the scheme. - Under the SCSS, retired Defence Services personnel are eligible irrespective of their age. However, certain other specific conditions must be met by these individuals Two passport-size photographsForm A must be completely filled and submitted Identity Proof: Passport or Permanent Account Number (PAN) Card must be submitted Address Proof: Aadhaar Card or telephone bill Age Proof: PAN Card, Voter ID, Birth Certificate, Senior Citizen Card, or PassportEmployee Provident Fund- Indian citizens are eligible to open a PPF account.  - An individual can open only one account under his/her name.  -However, another account can be opened by the individual on behalf of a minor. Identity Proof Address Proof PAN Card Aadhaar Card Passport Size Photographs Pay-in-Slip (available at bank branch/post office) Nomination Form Home Loan Repayment- Any Salaried or self-employed Individual aged between 21-65 years - Minimum income should be Rs.1,80,000 per annum - An applicant should have 2-3 years of current job or business stability experience Filled home loan application form Identity Proof: Aadhaar Card/ Passport /PAN Card/ Voter ID Card /Driving License Address Proof: Passport/Aadhaar Card /Utility Bill Residence Ownership Proof: Property Documents/Maintenance Bill/Electricity Bill Income Proof: Latest 3 months Salary Slips and Form 16       OR Latest 3 years Income Tax Returns including Computation of Income, Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet, Audit Report, etc. Business Existence Proof: 3 years old Saral Copy /Shop Establishment Act /Any Tax Registration Copy /Company Registration license Job Continuity Proof: Current Employment Certificate /Current Job Appointment letter (if more than 2 years)/Experience Certificate (including your previous job certificate or appointment and relieving letter) Bank Statements: Latest 1 year statement where your salary is getting credited Property Documents: Copy of agreement executed / Sale Deed, Share Certificate, Latest Maintenance Bill, List of documents & sanction letter given by Existing Banker (If applicable) Investment Proof: FixedDeposit/Shares/Fixed Assets, etc.Advance Processing ChequePassport size photograph/sPayment of Tuition FeesAny Indian citizen School Fee receipt for the entire year Filled in Form 12BB to their employer (salaried)Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana- Only girl children are eligible to hold the Sukanya Samriddhi account. - The maximum age of a girl child should not be more than 10 years. - Proof of age of the girl child needs to be attached. Parents and legal guardians are eligible to open the Sukanya Samriddhi account on behalf of their children. - One legal guardian/parent is eligible to open a maximum two accounts.- Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana Account Opening Form - Birth certificate of the girl child (account beneficiary) - Identity proof of the depositor (parent or legal guardian), i.e., PAN card, ration card, driving licence, passport. - Address proof of the depositor (parent or legal guardian), i.e., passport, ration card, electricity bill, telephone bill, driving licence. Read the full article

[shanedakotamuir]

The attacks on Vindman’s military uniform, explained

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council and is the first White House aide to testify in the House impeachment inquiry. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It’s standard practice for officers testifying on Capitol Hill to wear their uniform.

Four witnesses were called to testify on the third day of public hearings into the House impeachment inquiry. Of the four, Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council staffer and a US Army lieutenant colonel, was the only witness to come in full military garb — an outfit that placed Vindman’s military career on full display.

It’s standard practice for military officers testifying on Capitol Hill, but the dress uniform became a flashpoint on Tuesday.

Vindman is the top Ukraine expert on the NSC, which advises the president on national security and foreign policy matters, and has served in American embassies in Ukraine and Russia.

As Vox reported, that makes Vindman the first White House aide to testify in the inquiry. Vindman said he has not personally interacted with President Donald Trump, but was on the line for Trump’s two phone calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in April and July.

Despite his background as a decorated veteran, Vindman has been criticized by Republicans and conservatives on cable television for complying with the House subpoena to testify. On Monday, the night before Vindman’s testimony, Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, attacked his credibility as a witness, the Washington Post reported. Fox host Laura Ingraham and CNN commentator Sean Duffy have also questioned Vindman’s patriotism and national loyalty through insinuations about his immigrant background. (Vindman’s family fled the Soviet Union as refugees 40 years ago.)

On Tuesday, Republican attorney Steve Castor also used his time to ask Vindman about whether he was offered the post of Ukrainian defense minister. This line of questioning seems to be part of a conservative effort to discredit Vindman’s allegiance to the US.

The uniform, then, became a focus point for Republicans who believe the soldier wants to look more authoritative, and another line of attack for the GOP to question Vindman’s credibility.

Dressed in uniform, Vindman emphasized how the Army is nonpartisan. Republicans tried to paint him as un-American anyway.

Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient, previously wore his decorated Army uniform to the closed-door hearings in late October. While his outfit is more of a formality than a personal choice, the uniform could create the perception of credibility, especially among the public. Regardless, Vindman seemed intent on publicly presenting himself as an Army veteran in accordance to his testimony as a national security staffer.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Vindman arrives at his closed-door deposition in full military uniform on October 29.

From the start, Vindman sought to highlight his work as a public servant in the opening statement: “I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America,” he said.

“The uniform I wear today is that of the United States Army … We do not serve any particular political party, we serve the nation. I am humbled to come before you today as one of many who serve in the most distinguished and able military in the world,” Vindman added.

The Washington Examiner, a conservative news site, reported that members of the military who serve with the NSC typically wear suits, citing various unnamed military officials who disagreed with Vindman’s outfit. There’s a case for that: active-duty troops can wear civilian business attire if given a waiver to do so. It’s unclear if Vindman was given permission to wear a suit instead of his uniform to the hearing.

Trump’s former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has worn his Army uniform for some official duties in the White House, according to the Military Times in 2017. McMaster’s choice of dress was “an apparent break from other senior military officers who’ve served as high-profile political appointees while remaining on active duty.”

And again, that’s in the daily business of the NSC — not in front of lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Vindman is still an active-duty Army officer, and according to retired naval aviator Guy Snodgrass in an interview with Cheddar, “it’s [Vindman’s] obligation, in accordance with his oath of office, to [testify] in uniform.”

Because there's mixed reporting (and bad takes) about this issue, here's what retired Naval aviator Guy Snodgrass told me this last week about Lt. Col. Vindman appearing on the Hill in uniform: pic.twitter.com/Cgs0fhsF0m

— j.d. durkin (@jiveDurkey) November 19, 2019

When referred to as “Mr. Vindman” during his testimony by Rep. Devin Nunes, Vindman interrupted to ask the Republican representative to use the proper title of lieutenant colonel when addressing him.

Rep. Devin Nunes refers to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman as "Mr. Vindman." "Ranking member, it's lieutenant colonel Vindman, please," Vindman responds. https://t.co/SfAn7B5WcJ #ImpeachmentHearings pic.twitter.com/3i5D3OlMNP

— ABC News (@ABC) November 19, 2019

The uniform-based attacks were part of a broader hit on Vindman’s integrity. Republicans questioned the officer’s loyalty to the US because he speaks Ukrainian and emigrated from that country to America with his father. They targeted how Ukraine’s government thrice offered him the role of defense minister, which Vindman each time declined. And they painted him as a deep state operative looking to thwart Trump’s foreign policy.

They proved none of it. But when their defense of Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine lacks any merit, going after a witness is all they really have left.

Vindman isn’t the first NSC staffer to testify in full military uniform

Collins, the Republican lawmaker who criticized Vindman, doesn’t think that wearing a uniform would shield the NSC staffer from tough questions at the hearing, the Post reported. “I don’t think it shielded Oliver North from hard questions,” Collins told reporters.

Oliver North was a key witness in the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings, which was part of a congressional inquiry into whether President Ronald Reagan’s administration used profits from weapons sales to Iran to secretly fund a right-wing rebellious coup in Nicaragua.

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Oliver North, dressed in full military uniform, is sworn in as witness during the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings.

Tens of millions of people across the nation tuned in to watch the Iran-Contra hearings; North, a staffer on the National Security Council and a key decision maker in the events of the scandal, was one of the most anticipated witnesses.

While testifying, North wore a green Marine Corps uniform, decorated with six rows of service ribbons and a White House staff badge.

During his testimony, North admitted that he had lied and misled Congress and the American public by falsifying official documents to protect his superiors and the president. Still, his testimony — somewhat influenced by his appearance in full military garb — resonated with the public.

A Washington Post columnist wrote that North “cleverly projected himself as a brave, America-loving Marine who put the nation’s interest above that of even his family.” And it worked: “An ABC news poll cited by The Post at the time found that 92 percent of the public thought that North did well in defending his actions; 64 percent came to see him as a victim and not a villain in the scandal.”

Arguably, the significance of North’s uniform was not the ribbons that reflected his military career and administrative achievements (his decorations were “no more distinguished than what might be seen on many lieutenant colonels’ chests,” the Sun Sentinel reported in 1987). It was the White House badge he wore despite being fired from his NSC post by Reagan as the scandal publicly unfolded.

The Los Angeles Times reported, “Once that badge was reserved for military officers actually serving on the President’s staff. But a recent rule change allows former White House staff officers, like North, to continue wearing the badge — even though his actions helped plunge President Reagan into the worst crisis of his presidency.”

North’s testimony in full military uniform swayed public opinion in his favor, despite his direct involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. Vindman — a witness on Trump’s call to Ukraine who has no established connection with the President — has faced attacks on his credibility and patriotism, on top of his decision to wear a military uniform.

To his detractors, it’s a disgraceful choice to don a military outfit while testifying against the expected chain of command. To his supporters, it’s a symbol of Vindman’s patriotism and duty to his country beyond partisan politics.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2O483MG

[corneliusreignallen]

The attacks on Vindman’s military uniform, explained

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council and is the first White House aide to testify in the House impeachment inquiry. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It’s standard practice for officers testifying on Capitol Hill to wear their uniform.

Four witnesses were called to testify on the third day of public hearings into the House impeachment inquiry. Of the four, Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council staffer and a US Army lieutenant colonel, was the only witness to come in full military garb — an outfit that placed Vindman’s military career on full display.

It’s standard practice for military officers testifying on Capitol Hill, but the dress uniform became a flashpoint on Tuesday.

Vindman is the top Ukraine expert on the NSC, which advises the president on national security and foreign policy matters, and has served in American embassies in Ukraine and Russia.

As Vox reported, that makes Vindman the first White House aide to testify in the inquiry. Vindman said he has not personally interacted with President Donald Trump, but was on the line for Trump’s two phone calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in April and July.

Despite his background as a decorated veteran, Vindman has been criticized by Republicans and conservatives on cable television for complying with the House subpoena to testify. On Monday, the night before Vindman’s testimony, Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, attacked his credibility as a witness, the Washington Post reported. Fox host Laura Ingraham and CNN commentator Sean Duffy have also questioned Vindman’s patriotism and national loyalty through insinuations about his immigrant background. (Vindman’s family fled the Soviet Union as refugees 40 years ago.)

On Tuesday, Republican attorney Steve Castor also used his time to ask Vindman about whether he was offered the post of Ukrainian defense minister. This line of questioning seems to be part of a conservative effort to discredit Vindman’s allegiance to the US.

The uniform, then, became a focus point for Republicans who believe the soldier wants to look more authoritative, and another line of attack for the GOP to question Vindman’s credibility.

Dressed in uniform, Vindman emphasized how the Army is nonpartisan. Republicans tried to paint him as un-American anyway.

Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient, previously wore his decorated Army uniform to the closed-door hearings in late October. While his outfit is more of a formality than a personal choice, the uniform could create the perception of credibility, especially among the public. Regardless, Vindman seemed intent on publicly presenting himself as an Army veteran in accordance to his testimony as a national security staffer.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Vindman arrives at his closed-door deposition in full military uniform on October 29.

From the start, Vindman sought to highlight his work as a public servant in the opening statement: “I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America,” he said.

“The uniform I wear today is that of the United States Army … We do not serve any particular political party, we serve the nation. I am humbled to come before you today as one of many who serve in the most distinguished and able military in the world,” Vindman added.

The Washington Examiner, a conservative news site, reported that members of the military who serve with the NSC typically wear suits, citing various unnamed military officials who disagreed with Vindman’s outfit. There’s a case for that: active-duty troops can wear civilian business attire if given a waiver to do so. It’s unclear if Vindman was given permission to wear a suit instead of his uniform to the hearing.

Trump’s former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has worn his Army uniform for some official duties in the White House, according to the Military Times in 2017. McMaster’s choice of dress was “an apparent break from other senior military officers who’ve served as high-profile political appointees while remaining on active duty.”

And again, that’s in the daily business of the NSC — not in front of lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Vindman is still an active-duty Army officer, and according to retired naval aviator Guy Snodgrass in an interview with Cheddar, “it’s [Vindman’s] obligation, in accordance with his oath of office, to [testify] in uniform.”

Because there's mixed reporting (and bad takes) about this issue, here's what retired Naval aviator Guy Snodgrass told me this last week about Lt. Col. Vindman appearing on the Hill in uniform: pic.twitter.com/Cgs0fhsF0m

— j.d. durkin (@jiveDurkey) November 19, 2019

When referred to as “Mr. Vindman” during his testimony by Rep. Devin Nunes, Vindman interrupted to ask the Republican representative to use the proper title of lieutenant colonel when addressing him.

Rep. Devin Nunes refers to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman as "Mr. Vindman." "Ranking member, it's lieutenant colonel Vindman, please," Vindman responds. https://t.co/SfAn7B5WcJ #ImpeachmentHearings pic.twitter.com/3i5D3OlMNP

— ABC News (@ABC) November 19, 2019

The uniform-based attacks were part of a broader hit on Vindman’s integrity. Republicans questioned the officer’s loyalty to the US because he speaks Ukrainian and emigrated from that country to America with his father. They targeted how Ukraine’s government thrice offered him the role of defense minister, which Vindman each time declined. And they painted him as a deep state operative looking to thwart Trump’s foreign policy.

They proved none of it. But when their defense of Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine lacks any merit, going after a witness is all they really have left.

Vindman isn’t the first NSC staffer to testify in full military uniform

Collins, the Republican lawmaker who criticized Vindman, doesn’t think that wearing a uniform would shield the NSC staffer from tough questions at the hearing, the Post reported. “I don’t think it shielded Oliver North from hard questions,” Collins told reporters.

Oliver North was a key witness in the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings, which was part of a congressional inquiry into whether President Ronald Reagan’s administration used profits from weapons sales to Iran to secretly fund a right-wing rebellious coup in Nicaragua.

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Oliver North, dressed in full military uniform, is sworn in as witness during the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings.

Tens of millions of people across the nation tuned in to watch the Iran-Contra hearings; North, a staffer on the National Security Council and a key decision maker in the events of the scandal, was one of the most anticipated witnesses.

While testifying, North wore a green Marine Corps uniform, decorated with six rows of service ribbons and a White House staff badge.

During his testimony, North admitted that he had lied and misled Congress and the American public by falsifying official documents to protect his superiors and the president. Still, his testimony — somewhat influenced by his appearance in full military garb — resonated with the public.

A Washington Post columnist wrote that North “cleverly projected himself as a brave, America-loving Marine who put the nation’s interest above that of even his family.” And it worked: “An ABC news poll cited by The Post at the time found that 92 percent of the public thought that North did well in defending his actions; 64 percent came to see him as a victim and not a villain in the scandal.”

Arguably, the significance of North’s uniform was not the ribbons that reflected his military career and administrative achievements (his decorations were “no more distinguished than what might be seen on many lieutenant colonels’ chests,” the Sun Sentinel reported in 1987). It was the White House badge he wore despite being fired from his NSC post by Reagan as the scandal publicly unfolded.

The Los Angeles Times reported, “Once that badge was reserved for military officers actually serving on the President’s staff. But a recent rule change allows former White House staff officers, like North, to continue wearing the badge — even though his actions helped plunge President Reagan into the worst crisis of his presidency.”

North’s testimony in full military uniform swayed public opinion in his favor, despite his direct involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. Vindman — a witness on Trump’s call to Ukraine who has no established connection with the President — has faced attacks on his credibility and patriotism, on top of his decision to wear a military uniform.

To his detractors, it’s a disgraceful choice to don a military outfit while testifying against the expected chain of command. To his supporters, it’s a symbol of Vindman’s patriotism and duty to his country beyond partisan politics.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2O483MG

[gracieyvonnehunter]

The attacks on Vindman’s military uniform, explained

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council and is the first White House aide to testify in the House impeachment inquiry. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It’s standard practice for officers testifying on Capitol Hill to wear their uniform.

Four witnesses were called to testify on the third day of public hearings into the House impeachment inquiry. Of the four, Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council staffer and a US Army lieutenant colonel, was the only witness to come in full military garb — an outfit that placed Vindman’s military career on full display.

It’s standard practice for military officers testifying on Capitol Hill, but the dress uniform became a flashpoint on Tuesday.

Vindman is the top Ukraine expert on the NSC, which advises the president on national security and foreign policy matters, and has served in American embassies in Ukraine and Russia.

As Vox reported, that makes Vindman the first White House aide to testify in the inquiry. Vindman said he has not personally interacted with President Donald Trump, but was on the line for Trump’s two phone calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in April and July.

Despite his background as a decorated veteran, Vindman has been criticized by Republicans and conservatives on cable television for complying with the House subpoena to testify. On Monday, the night before Vindman’s testimony, Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, attacked his credibility as a witness, the Washington Post reported. Fox host Laura Ingraham and CNN commentator Sean Duffy have also questioned Vindman’s patriotism and national loyalty through insinuations about his immigrant background. (Vindman’s family fled the Soviet Union as refugees 40 years ago.)

On Tuesday, Republican attorney Steve Castor also used his time to ask Vindman about whether he was offered the post of Ukrainian defense minister. This line of questioning seems to be part of a conservative effort to discredit Vindman’s allegiance to the US.

The uniform, then, became a focus point for Republicans who believe the soldier wants to look more authoritative, and another line of attack for the GOP to question Vindman’s credibility.

Dressed in uniform, Vindman emphasized how the Army is nonpartisan. Republicans tried to paint him as un-American anyway.

Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient, previously wore his decorated Army uniform to the closed-door hearings in late October. While his outfit is more of a formality than a personal choice, the uniform could create the perception of credibility, especially among the public. Regardless, Vindman seemed intent on publicly presenting himself as an Army veteran in accordance to his testimony as a national security staffer.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Vindman arrives at his closed-door deposition in full military uniform on October 29.

From the start, Vindman sought to highlight his work as a public servant in the opening statement: “I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America,” he said.

“The uniform I wear today is that of the United States Army … We do not serve any particular political party, we serve the nation. I am humbled to come before you today as one of many who serve in the most distinguished and able military in the world,” Vindman added.

The Washington Examiner, a conservative news site, reported that members of the military who serve with the NSC typically wear suits, citing various unnamed military officials who disagreed with Vindman’s outfit. There’s a case for that: active-duty troops can wear civilian business attire if given a waiver to do so. It’s unclear if Vindman was given permission to wear a suit instead of his uniform to the hearing.

Trump’s former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has worn his Army uniform for some official duties in the White House, according to the Military Times in 2017. McMaster’s choice of dress was “an apparent break from other senior military officers who’ve served as high-profile political appointees while remaining on active duty.”

And again, that’s in the daily business of the NSC — not in front of lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Vindman is still an active-duty Army officer, and according to retired naval aviator Guy Snodgrass in an interview with Cheddar, “it’s [Vindman’s] obligation, in accordance with his oath of office, to [testify] in uniform.”

Because there's mixed reporting (and bad takes) about this issue, here's what retired Naval aviator Guy Snodgrass told me this last week about Lt. Col. Vindman appearing on the Hill in uniform: pic.twitter.com/Cgs0fhsF0m

— j.d. durkin (@jiveDurkey) November 19, 2019

When referred to as “Mr. Vindman” during his testimony by Rep. Devin Nunes, Vindman interrupted to ask the Republican representative to use the proper title of lieutenant colonel when addressing him.

Rep. Devin Nunes refers to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman as "Mr. Vindman." "Ranking member, it's lieutenant colonel Vindman, please," Vindman responds. https://t.co/SfAn7B5WcJ #ImpeachmentHearings pic.twitter.com/3i5D3OlMNP

— ABC News (@ABC) November 19, 2019

The uniform-based attacks were part of a broader hit on Vindman’s integrity. Republicans questioned the officer’s loyalty to the US because he speaks Ukrainian and emigrated from that country to America with his father. They targeted how Ukraine’s government thrice offered him the role of defense minister, which Vindman each time declined. And they painted him as a deep state operative looking to thwart Trump’s foreign policy.

They proved none of it. But when their defense of Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine lacks any merit, going after a witness is all they really have left.

Vindman isn’t the first NSC staffer to testify in full military uniform

Collins, the Republican lawmaker who criticized Vindman, doesn’t think that wearing a uniform would shield the NSC staffer from tough questions at the hearing, the Post reported. “I don’t think it shielded Oliver North from hard questions,” Collins told reporters.

Oliver North was a key witness in the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings, which was part of a congressional inquiry into whether President Ronald Reagan’s administration used profits from weapons sales to Iran to secretly fund a right-wing rebellious coup in Nicaragua.

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Oliver North, dressed in full military uniform, is sworn in as witness during the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings.

Tens of millions of people across the nation tuned in to watch the Iran-Contra hearings; North, a staffer on the National Security Council and a key decision maker in the events of the scandal, was one of the most anticipated witnesses.

While testifying, North wore a green Marine Corps uniform, decorated with six rows of service ribbons and a White House staff badge.

During his testimony, North admitted that he had lied and misled Congress and the American public by falsifying official documents to protect his superiors and the president. Still, his testimony — somewhat influenced by his appearance in full military garb — resonated with the public.

A Washington Post columnist wrote that North “cleverly projected himself as a brave, America-loving Marine who put the nation’s interest above that of even his family.” And it worked: “An ABC news poll cited by The Post at the time found that 92 percent of the public thought that North did well in defending his actions; 64 percent came to see him as a victim and not a villain in the scandal.”

Arguably, the significance of North’s uniform was not the ribbons that reflected his military career and administrative achievements (his decorations were “no more distinguished than what might be seen on many lieutenant colonels’ chests,” the Sun Sentinel reported in 1987). It was the White House badge he wore despite being fired from his NSC post by Reagan as the scandal publicly unfolded.

The Los Angeles Times reported, “Once that badge was reserved for military officers actually serving on the President’s staff. But a recent rule change allows former White House staff officers, like North, to continue wearing the badge — even though his actions helped plunge President Reagan into the worst crisis of his presidency.”

North’s testimony in full military uniform swayed public opinion in his favor, despite his direct involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. Vindman — a witness on Trump’s call to Ukraine who has no established connection with the President — has faced attacks on his credibility and patriotism, on top of his decision to wear a military uniform.

To his detractors, it’s a disgraceful choice to don a military outfit while testifying against the expected chain of command. To his supporters, it’s a symbol of Vindman’s patriotism and duty to his country beyond partisan politics.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2O483MG