War On Terror News - Perspectives is for our original content. While our positions are based in our experiences, the news at the main site, and independent study, this is where we post the analysis of that news.
Medal of Honor
Their Stories in Their Words. Video Testimony of the events that *earned* them the Medal of Honor (*****)
An American Carol - Comedy
The best comedy of 2008 and perhaps the new millenium, sure to be a hit with Our Warriors. I was one of the first to see it at the theater and this was my review then: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/10/movie-review--.html
It's available in Blu-Ray and it'll certainly be in my DVD collection. Finally, a great movie, patriotic, anti-Michael Moore, with actors of rational minds.
(*****)
LTG(ret) Michael DeLong: A General Speaks Out
Go Behind the Scenes at CentCom with the #2 General in charge of the Middle East Theater. He dispels myths and explains the decisions and personalities involved in the decisions made in the Who, What, Where, When and Why. When the SecDef needed an answer, this was the man he called.
Clearly, he was a Marine's Marine leading the US Military at times of Great Peril. He speaks frankly and writes in a manner without political aspiration. (*****)
Robin Moore, RIP: The Hunt for Bin Laden
There is perhaps no other civilian author that has searched so deeply and learned so much about the "Green Berets", which happens to be the title of his earlier book, on which John Wayne's movie was based.
Following the Invasion of Afghanistan, he went as quickly as he could get there and talked to the Men from the 5th Special Forces Group who were still there to hear the stories straight from the horses' mouths on how 200 Special Operations troops were able to rid the world of a tyranny and deal a deadly blow to the enemy Al-Qaeda Terrorists in the weeks following 9/11. (*****)
SSG David Bellavia: House To House
SSG Bellavia, Recipient of the Silver Star and recommended for the Medal of Honor takes us into the realities of Urban Combat. Another True Hero who will likely continue to lead this Nation forward as he continues to serve our Nation in new ways. (*****)
Marcus Luttrell: Lone Survivor
Marcus Luttrell, USN SeAL, and a true Hero takes the reader through his experiences including those that EARNED him the Navy Cross in Afghanistan. (*****)
Ace Of Spades: Why Language Matters In this article, Ace of Spades demonstrates how the writing style of "journalists" and other writers is purposely used to influence the electorate. He explains this far better than I have been able to do, but this is the foundation of why I could no longer be silent.
Go to War against the Nazis with SSG Smith of the 94th Infantry Division. Review: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/04/everymans-war-vet.html.html
Free Shipping on Orders more than $200.00: code SHIP009
Snipers
Hunters
Amazon
Giftcards
Amazon
Combat Optical
Delta Bravo Sierra
Volume 1
For a few bucks more you can get a signed copy from the author himself! http://www.deltabravosierra.us/2011/02/10/a-word-about-the-new-book/comment-page-1/#comment-3383
Get your copy of this legendary cartoon now (or wait a few days for the signed copy!)
While you can find cheaper kits, or more comprehensive kits, an 100w panel with the addition of a battery is sufficient to get you started, and learn the basics.
Stepping up to the 200 watts of panels will cost a bit more on the front end, but avoid the costs of replacing as many components if you decide to expand it. It'll run you about 75% more than the first 100 watts
Remember GITMO? The holiday camp, where the accused in the 9/11 atrocity have EVERY whim satisfied?
While KSM et al continue to 'suffer' such horrible conditions, the President of the United States continues to release residents. The pre-trial motions are crawling along, and this week, the Military Commission is in session as the actual trial date seems so far away:
U.S. v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, et al., Motions Hearing
Start Date/Time:Monday, December 16, 2013 9:00 AM (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
End Date/Time:
Friday, December 20, 2013 5:30 PM (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
On 15th December Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins made a public statement. An excerpt:
This is the document that clearly authorizes what the Federal government is allowed to do, what authorities and responsibilities the separate entities of the Government have. It is what Our Troops swear to defend and what our politicians and judges have sworn to uphold:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As is pointed out within that article, the US Constitution is but four (4!!!) pages of simple language setting out what America is/will be, and what it is NOT. The foundations upon which a great nation was based seem to have been shaken to the core in recent years, as the current crop of politicians seem determined to over-reach the very clear limits placed upon them within that framework. Today, from where I sit, America is under attack by those very 'servants' of the people who - as noted above - swore to uphold the Constitution.
Can the same word or term mean different things? When a "progressive" talks about the government of "We the people" is it the same thing that the Founders meant when they wrote "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union?" Is the People's Republic of China different than the government "of the People, by the People, and for the People?" Does it tell us anything that the Declaration of Independence refers to "the State of Great Britain," and establishment of "Free and Independent States?"
While many think of the Individual States as subservient to the Federal Government, the word "State" is a synonym of "Nation," not "Province." But, I have addressed the importance and reality of that difference elsewhere.
The question of the day is concerning "the People's government." Communism often used "the people" to describe it's authoritarian government. A tenet of its propaganda was that "the people," meaning the government owned everything, and the Individual owned nothing. Theoretically, "the people" were equal in their misery, in a "utopia" where greed was eliminated, and the "intellectual elite" had equal shares of misery as did the illiterate farmer in the field. The reality was far different as the Rulers had benefit of all things the government owned, while their subjects were given just enough to get by. The subjects' "right to work" was not a right at all, but a demand, and usually a demand to produce more than was possible, because they were not allowed to keep much of any of their labors.
The Constitutional Republic created by Our Founders was an exact opposite of the Communism of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, and yet Our Founders also stressed that government was a function of "We, the People." As the most basic premise of the Constitution is the principal that Individual Citizens are the Masters of government, not the servants of it.
While Communism insinuated that people needed own nothing because they owned everything, the reality was far different. Those that attempted to use materials owned by them and everyone, which had not been authorized to them specifically, found themselves in the Siberian prison camps that they and everyone else owned. It was the People's Prison, where government and "the people" were synonymous.
Conversely, the Founders deemed the government an evil but necessary exercise with no authority but that which was granted it by the People. They did not give the government any more land than they deemed absolutely necessary, nor more power than they felt they must. They wrote the Bill of Rights as absolutes that the government could never take away from the Individual. They did not extend equal results to the Citizen, but rather equal opportunity, and the Right to retain the results by the Individual that seized those opportunities.
The difference between Communism and Capitalism is the difference between equal (miserable) results and equal opportunity and retention of those results, regardless of how unequal. It is the difference between Government ownership of everything and Individual Liberty of the Citizenry.
While the Founders laid out that the Federal governments properties were not subject to interference by the States, they also established that the Federal government needed little land to perform its limited duties. They established a separate district, outside of the States, and donated by two of the States, as that place, so none of the States would exert undue influence over the Federal government.
Often today, when people reference "We the People" they are demanding that some Citizens give up their Rights because they claim a majority of voters support the government having more property, more taxes, and more power. Prosecutors often refer to "the People" taking actions against Citizens, in trials of Citizens, who Constitutionally are presumed to be innocent. "The People" aren't calling for these prosecutions. The Government is. "The People" most often don't even know what has been alleged by the government, and even less often see the evidence in the case. The Founders guaranteed Citizens the Right to be judged by a jury of their peers, to try to balance out the prosecution by the government.
While technically, "the People" are the Individual owners of all public lands, the reality is that the government is the sole property owner. And the government will prosecute you if you decide to take something from its land without permission. The government will put government owned handcuffs on you, put you in a government owned car, transport you to a government owned jail, then to a government owned court, so that a government employee can "plead" the government case, to another government employee, that you should be constrained by other government employees, if you are caught by yet another government employee taking property from "the people's property."
That really doesn't sound all that different from the days when the King's guard threw his subjects in prison for hunting the King's deer in the King's forests, does it? The difference is that today, we call it "the people's property" and explain that stealing it is stealing from all the people, even though one of the People deemed that he needed to use it.
But let's take a walk down the road of Individual Rights of the Constitution. As the Individual Citizen is equal to all other Individual Citizens, and a master of his government, he gets up in the morning, holsters his M9 Beretta under his jacket, slings his M4 over it, and walks down to the town square, where he meets the elected head of government, expresses his opinion that said politician is a low life scum, whom he believes God will damn to an eternity in fire and brimstone. The politician responds with flowery speech of how his parties are open to all, with beautiful women and free flowing wine, as well as the best caviar from the Caspian Sea. Our Independent Citizen points out that the politician is buying votes with "the people's" treasury, and God condemns the debauchery of drunkenness and womanizing.
As the voices elevate, a policeman arrives and sees that no crime is being committed. It is only two men expressing their opinions. A judge arrives and issues no warrants, as the Citizen has presented no proof of bribery or theft. A priest arrives and invites the politician to confessional which the politician declines and no one forces him to go. The man is not searched as there is no cause. The politician is not jailed for there is no proof.
On the other side of the world, an Iranian whispers to his friend that he fears there is no Allah, for the Ayatollah bequeaths so little to the impoverished. A Korean whispers to his neighbor that he wonders if the rice does not come from America, rather than the Dear Leader, for it bears their Flag rather than his seal. Fearing a trap, the friend tells the mullah and the neighbor tells "the Party." The Iranian and the Korean are sent to political prisons for re-education. "The People" have spoken and the Iranian learns to be grateful that only his liberties have been lost, rather than his life, for his thoughts are blasphemy. The Korean learns to be grateful for what few kernels of rice "the People's guard" allots him each day.
Our Citizen on the other hand, after working the day away comes home and begins thinking of his discussion and becomes more convinced that the head of government is wasting the Treasury. He types a letter to the local editor saying so. The editor declines to print the letter as he says it is nothing but rumor and innuendo. The Citizen starts a blog and prints it there. The prosecutor reads the blog and decides to look for himself. He subpoenas the records of the Treasury and finds that the head of government is indeed spending the Treasury on lavish parties. He takes the politician to court and lays out his case. The defense retorts that every Citizen is invited to the parties and the funds are approved by the Council as a service to "the People." The Politician is found innocent of wrongdoing, but the People have learned of the lavishness.
Our Citizen continues his blog and the Politician is incensed. He calls the tax collector and orders an audit, but the tax collector responds that he has no proof of a crime. He tells the politician that the Law states Our Citizen has a Right to be Secure in his Papers and Effects. The Politician calls the Policeman and orders a search of Our Citizen's house. The Policeman responds that he has no warrant. He calls the Judge and demands a warrant. The Judge asks for proof of reasonable suspicion but given none, the Judge tells the politician Our Citizen has a Right to be secure in his home. The politician calls the General and orders his Troops to be put in the new Fort of the Citizens House. The General responds that the Citizen has a Right to be compensated if the Army needs his property.
Being unhappy with the way his government is spending his money, Our Citizen uses his blog to call for the election of a different caretaker of it. A businessman is found, who promises to spend the taxes on schools and roads rather than wine and women. Our Citizen endorses him in his Blog.
We, "The People," are Citizens with inalienable Rights, and are the Masters of the Government, not merely subjects of it. Our Rights are absolute. We cannot take those Rights from fellow Citizens, no matter how many of us agree to do so. The officials of government are NOT Our Masters. They are Our Servants. They are entrusted by us to oversee the organs of government, not endowed by us to subject us to their whims. Law Enforcement officials are not empowered as agents of the ruling class to enforce the will of government on us, but entrusted by us to remove criminals from Our Streets. Properties owned by the government are properties that are no longer putting tax money in the Treasury, but costing money of the Treasury. Bureaucrats are not the authority of which businesses should profit or which should be closed, nor are they the decision makers of who is taxed and who is subsidized. They are additional costs to ensuring that the necessities of the infrastructure needed is put in place.
This Nation was founded on the Principal that each Citizen has the same Rights and equal opportunity as every employee of their government, including the guy that presides over those employees. That's why we call him "the President," rather than the King. It was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not as a democracy, because Our Founders recognized the need for Representatives of the People, and a need to guarantee the Rights of Citizens in the face of politicians and their desire for power.
It is long past time that we recognize the importance of Equal Citizens and the subservience of government to them. It is time that we admit what is "the government" and what is "We, The People." And it is time that when the government acts against a Citizen, we end this propaganda that it is instead "The People" who are acting against a member of their own.
The youth do not always understand the realities of the world around them. Often, their view is tainted by distortions taught to them. Through the lens of history, present reality and future possibilities and probabilities become more clear. When that clarity presents inconsistencies, we should look deeper in history to find the missing pieces.
Today's America is not just fundamentally different from that of the 80's, the 1780's, 1880's, and even the 1980's, it is the exact opposite of the Nation founded by Our Forefathers. This is not just recognized by "The Tea Party" but evidenced by those, including the Department of Homeland Security, which identifies those that quote the Constitution, as "extremists." A sizable portion of the population sees no issue with the present state of America. Many have accepted today's reality as an acceptable trade of "a little Liberty for security." Many justify the incursions into their lives with "if you're doing nothing wrong then you have no reason to fear" the government tracking your words and deeds.
These changes will continue, in the wrong direction, until the People themselves understand why they should not accept them, and send Representatives to Washington to stop them. The People will not come to this understanding, until someone or some persons, can effectively communicate why they should stand up for Liberty, instead of accept the suppression of it. The Constitution was not blindly accepted in 1788. Those that believed in it presented their case, to the People.
Those that opposed it, presented the opposing view. Neither side were convinced that just because they said it was the best plan, the People would just blindly accept it. They may have been some of the smartest people in the room, but they understood that they had to present their case to convince others of the value of the plan.
That is the component missing in today's politics. Today, politicians expect that because they said so, or because the party says so, the partymembers should endorse it. And too often, most often, the members do and then call the opposition names for opposing it, and for supporting their own politicians' policies, blindly. Most legislation is written in legalese even the politicians cannot understand, much less those calling others names for not supporting or opposing the latest bill. Even the budget has grown so complex that few, if anyone, including lawmakers, know where it all goes.
Too often the means are confused with the ends. Too often the ends are used as justification for the means. For example, no piece of equipment or metal is inherently evil, or good. It is just a tool. An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, UAV, UAS, or drone if you prefer, is not inherently evil. It is a tool, that can be used wisely, and within the confines of International Law and the Constitution, or it can be used in contradiction to it, whether armed or not. While the use of drones is not specifically covered in the Geneva Conventions or the Constitution, both have provisions which makes clear legal and illegal uses.
International Law affords a Nation sovereignity over its airspace. Incursions into that airspace can be considered an act of war, particularly if that incursion is used to drop explosives on the land of that Sovereign Nation. The Geneva Convention forbids the targeting of non-combatants. It really doesn't matter if the invasion of airspace is manned or not. When drones invade the airspace of a Sovereign Nation and drop bombs on a civilian TV station, it is not only an act of war, but a war crime.
The Constitution, or more specifically, the Bill of Rights, guarantees US Citizens the God-given Right to be secure in their persons, their homes, their effects, and their papers. If drones are used to usurp that Right, then it is the incursion, not the vehicle which is un-Constitutional.
How is today's America fundamentally different than the Nation which was founded? It begins with the most fundamental provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution lays out the authorities and responsibilities of the Federal Government. It lays out the means of the branches of government and the authorities of each. Often, the "three branches of government" are discussed along with "the 4th estate" or "branch" being used to describe the press. One could more readily make the case that "the 4th branch" is State government.
The Constitution is clear. The role of the federal government is Foreign Affairs, almost exclusively. It requires the maintenance of a Navy. It allows the raising of an Army. It places the making and agreeing to of treaties as exclusively that of the federal government, but also the minting of a common currency and establishment of postal roads. It requires that all actions of the Federal Government be fair in treatment of all States, but limits the legislative power of the Federal Government to that of Interstate Commerce.
Internally, the Constitution preserves the Right of People to be governed by a republican form of government by the individual State, while requiring the States to respect the Rights of Citizens of other States.
Juxtapose that with the current situation in which the Federal Government requires residents of the Nation to buy certain things and forbids them from buying other things.
Why would it be better for the State Government to make laws for the Citizenry? Well, the people of Arizona face different situations than do the people of New York. It is far more necessary for the people of the peninsula of Florida to have a law forbidding the tying of an alligator to a fire hydrant, than for the peninsula of Michigan. The residents of Massachusetts are far more supportive of paying more taxes for mandatory health care, than are the Citizens of Tennessee.
And the votes of each resident is far more important to a candidate for Mayor than Governor than President. So too are the votes of each resident more important to candidates for Councilman than State Representative than House Representative than Senator. Simply put, you have more power when you pull the lever for Councilman, than for Senator. Hence, that Councilman is going to listen more closely when you voice your opposition to municipal laws and policies than is a Senator, or the President. That is amplified by the fact that so few actually pay attention to the local levels.
The Founders had experienced the abuses of an unresponsive ruler. They understood the frustration of having no non-violent means to remove a tyrant. They wrote the Constitution to preserve the Rights of the People and limit the abuses of a ruler. They gave us a peaceful means to remove the abuser and to correct the course.
They had concerns over the abuses of a standing Army. America's military is unique in the world. Nearly every other country in the world uses their military in a law enforcement capacity, and the British Army of 1770 was one such example. It was used to enforce the dictates of the King on the American Colonists, with the power to arrest and to seize property of Colonists. When the Founders wrote the limitation of funding a Standing Army to two years at a time, it was not to prevent foreign wars, but to prevent incursions on the American People. The intent was closer to preventing a Standing Department of Homeland Security than to prevent Bagram Air Base.
The Founders did not desire a weak defense. Quite the contrary, they recognized the need for a strong defense. They required the provision of a Navy and considered every man to be a member of the Militia. How much stronger a defense can be mounted than one in which every man is ready to fend off invaders?
They recognized that all the limitations of the Constitution and their individual recognitions that Individuals had Rights given by God would not prevent a ruler of tyrannical desire to usurp those Rights. So immediately, upon ratification of the Constitution, and even contingent to ratifying it, they drafted the Bill of Rights. Ten of the twelve Amendments were ratified in less than 16 months, in a time where communication relied on horse borne messengers and ships.
When the Press is caught stealing information they have no authority to have or making accusations without presenting the accuser, they cry "First Amendment Rights," and when atheists decry a nativity scene or a cross, they claim the First Amendment requires a "separation of church and state," but the 1st Amendment clearly states the Citizen's Right to Free Speech, including in religion, the Press, and as a gathering, in Protest. It does not forbid a child from saying a prayer, nor even the teacher. On the contrary, it protects their Right to do so. It does not forbid a person, or group, from speaking out against the policies of the President. It protects that person or group from retaliation by the organs of government.
The 16th Amendment makes the Income Tax Constitutional, but it does not override the 4th Amendment, which preserves the Right of the People from unlawful/warrantless search and seizure of property, to include their persons, papers, and effects. It is necessary for a government to have funds, but the Constitution requires that the taxes be collected fairly. The Founders forbid seizures of property because a government can use that threat as a means to threaten a people into the will of a ruler, without the rule of law. The Founders recognized that the People had a God-Given Right to the fruits of their own labors, to include leaving those fruits in inheritance to whom they pleased.
The federal government still collects all of the taxes that funded it prior to 1913 when the 16th Amendment was passed, and yet the only time in American History that the federal government was not in debt was under Andrew Jackson, long before there was an income tax. It is true that there have been times when there was not a budget deficit, as recently as the late 90's when Gingrich compromised with Clinton to not spend as much on things the other didn't like, but only under President Jackson was there a surplus in the Treasury.
So, how did Jackson bring about a surplus while collecting taxes from fewer resources and expanding the Nation? He budgeted within the confines of what Congress allowed him and within the confines of what the Constitution allowed. The States ran domestic affairs. The federal government concerned itself with external threats (including the threat by the Indian Nations within the Nation).
Why is it important that you not curtail the Rights of your neighbor, and stand up for those Rights, even when you dislike him, or what he is doing on his property? Because if you support the curtailing of the Rights of other Citizens, you also curtail your own Rights. Because if you are successful in curtailing their Rights by force of majorities, other majorities will curtail the Rights you believe yourself entitled to have.
It does not matter how deep I hold my convictions in the importance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It does not matter how important those Rights are, if the majority of the Nation is willing to sacrifice their Rights in order to curtail mine. It does not matter how many times I attempt to convince the People of that importance of their Rights and mine, if they remain unconvinced. If we are to return this Nation to a course of Liberty and the Prosperity that Liberty brings, a convincing voice must be found.
Experience demonstrates that few find my voice convincing. This article demonstrates that still today I have not learned the means of messaging to a Nation lost by more than 140 characters. In 2000 words or more, I still haven't touched on the abuses of the Constitution in today's America, much less a convincing argument to change course. I can only hope that it plants the seeds to bring about such a voice. I can only pray that government will recognize my Rights in my part of my domain, and allow me to live in peace, but I fear that like David, they want my meager possessions, despite their possession of so much more, and my history in their service.
It is counterproductive for party leaders and hacks to step up to their bully pulpits and insult the people who follow the opposition. It is an insult for partisans to demand blind adherence to a party leader and platform. An intelligent and educated people can be led astray. It is long past time for a leader to demonstrate the evidence of why we must return to the governance of the Constitution.
Many today, think of the US Constitution as the original Constitution of the United States. It often slips their notice that there is a gap between 1776 and 1787. Most regard George Washington as the 1st President, though he was inaugurated in 1789. There were 10 Presidents from 1777 to 1788, each serving a year, beginning with Samuel Huntington. They served under the Articles of Confederation:
The Articles of Confederation
Nov. 15, 1777
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
IV.
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.
If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.
V.
For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a powerreserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.
No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.
Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.
In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
VI.
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.
No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.
VII.
When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.
VIII.
All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.
IX.
The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article
of sending and receiving ambassadors
entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever
of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated
of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace
appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.
The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.
All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before presecribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.
The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States
fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States
regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated
establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office
appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers
appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States
making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.
The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction
to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses
to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted
to build and equip a navy
to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judeg can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.
The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.
The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.
X.
The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.
XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.
XII.
All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pleged.
XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.
Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777
In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781
The "American Experiment" is being slowly strangled. The lust of power of politicians is successfully selling the snake oil of "free" government handouts for the price of citizenship and Liberty. And, it is diametrically opposed to the very foundations of the united States.
The very core principal of Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is that all men have equal Rights and duties of Citizenship, that government is a necessary evil, that must be contained, and rulers are inherently untrustworthy.
The Founding Fathers set out to limit the power of government, and politicians, to base necessary authorities, while guaranteeing that the Rights of The People, Sovereign Citizens, exceeded those of the person they chose to preside over the government. Despite modern perceptions that the President governs the Nation, and rules the people, the very concept of the office in the Constitution is that he is in charge, only over the day to day business of running government offices, employees, and infrastructure of the government.
They wrote of united States, not the United States, as a State, by definition is Sovereign, and our States were united in Foreign Affairs and Defense, and Sovereign in governance within their borders. They knew that politicians closest to the Citizenry would be forced to be most responsive to it, yet that small States were vulnerable to rivalries and invasions. The Constitution specifically forbids the Federal government from interference of the affairs of States within their own borders. It affords for the Federal government to regulate only those issues that cross State borders, to maintain a level playing field.
The only authorized role of the Federal government in the lives of individuals, of Citizens, was to guarantee their God-Given Rights. The Declaration of Independence makes clear the Founders attributed those Rights to be granted by God, not man, and not the Government. Provisions were made for those that betrayed the Nation, that betrayed the Constitution, and for those that betrayed the trust of the People. And protections were built in, to ensure that Rights were removed from Citizens, only with a high bar of evidence, and the conviction by a jury of peers, and rule of judge.
It was given that the fruits of the labor of the Citizenry should not be taken easily by the government, and only in those amounts that were necessary for the functioning of a very limited government.
"Giving power and money to government is like giving car keys and whiskey to teenage boys." P.J. O'Rourke
That's clearly not one of the Founding Fathers, but it does elaborate on the wisdom they shared in the Constitution. It demonstrates the same distrust the writers of the Constitution had for those of not just unlimited power, but of any power, even the limited power they afforded the Republic of the united States.
Today, there are those that believe that the government should provide for the People. There was a time when it was argued that the government should provide a safety net, for those that could not provide for themselves, but that has expanded to arguments that the government should force the Citizen to be caught up in that net. The government simply cannot give everyone everything they need, much less want. The very concept of the fruits of Citizen's labor going to government, in exchange for the government deciding what morsels it will give the Subjects of the Empire, is slavery or serfdom.
It is fundamentally different than the Liberty of Citizens to determine their own futures, to benefit from their own labors, and decide for themselves what goods and services they need and want to purchase. But why would a Citizen prefer to keep his money and decide for himself to buy a service, rather than give his income to the government and receive the same service "for free?"
Let's say you want health insurance. Insurance is a payment to a company in an amount greater than your current costs, in return for defraying the future costs of the actual service you may need. The company invests excess funds to decrease your costs, and attempts to sell policies to those needing less of the service, at present. In order to not go bankrupt, the return on their investments and the total payments of all customers, must be greater than the payments for the insured services. A reasonable amount to charge the insured customer might be $5000.00 a year, with payments in the early years of $2,500.00 a year, with the company investing the rest. Already, the customer is paying twice as much for the insurance, as he would for the direct services.
Insurance is most effective for events that are unlikely, but catatrophic. That's why home insurance costs so much less than car insurance, despite insuring a greater amount of value. A far greater proportion of cars end in total destruction than do homes. The "risk" of a payout is far greater for a car insurance policy. The cost increases due to the government requirement that drivers purchase it. It is also why it costs more to insure a rental property than a homeowner occupied property (the structure, not the contents). Renters are less likely to protect the property from damage than is a homeowner.
So, if you have the option of insuring your own health, you would be paying for the associated risks based on your current health, plus the costs of the company to hire employees that would manage it, and the buildings they would work in.
But if you instead pay the government to insure your health care, you still have to pay (through taxes) the costs of your health care risks (that $5000/year), plus the government bureacrats that will collect those funds (IRS), that will choose your insurance company (DHHS), and disburse those funds (Treasury), as well as those that support those agencies (GSA), and maintain those buildings (ACE), and protect those buildings and bureacrats (DHS). All of those costs are additional to the $5000 you are paying for the insurance, and the base $2500 you would pay for the actual service.
Before the government has even begun collecting those taxes, and before it has even begun paying your health insurance bill, the Federal government is already collecting more taxes and borrowing more money, than any other government in the world.
For most people, it is already financially better to take the money and buy their own health insurance or medical services, than it is to take the health insurance as a "benefit" of employment, but when you add the costs of bureacracy to the equation, your "free" health care is costing you far more than that of even that "benefit," that ties you down to a company. Initially, these costs will be paid with "greater debt" of the Federal government, but already the Administration has pushed through greater taxes and is pushing for more, under the general auspices of government, while cutting back on the amounts they spend on actual Constitutionally mandated affairs, such as Defense and Diplomacy.
Wouldn't it be great if the government provided you all your basic needs, like food, shelter, and water? Or would you chaff at the idea that you were given 3 brussel sprouts, 6 slices of bread, and 12 ounces of meat a day, in exchange for your day's labor? Oh, yeah, that was tried, and it was called Feudalism, and tried again, and it was called Communism. Despite the ideological slogans that one was led by the divine decision of a diety to choose a monarch, and the people's communal property of everything, nothing good was achieved by an enslaved nation of men that were not allowed to make their own decisions. And current day examples of North Korea, Cuba, and Iran afford no better outlook on the powerful few ruling the individual lives of subjects.
The recent scandals at the IRS, DOJ, and Department of State (Benghazi) afford us plenty of reason to maintain, and regain, the limited government Our Founding Fathers prescribed.
To reattain it, those that understand it, must regain the halls of education. History must be taught. It is not just a list of dates and data, but a story of real men, doing things fiction writers cannot fathom. To reattain it, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers must be taught. To reattain Liberty, Citizens must not only understand their Rights, but why Our Founders attributed them to God, not government, but still saw the need to guarantee them from government.
To regain the Rights of a Sovereign Citizenry, the subjects of the Empire will have to give up some of the "free" goods the rulers have promised them.
History is wrought with examples of subjects of a government rebelling against their ruling tyrant, whether King, Emperor, Czar, Caesar, Ayatollah, or Secretary-General of the Politburo. When the tyrant, the dictator grows too overbearing, too oppressive, or too stingy with the goods, the serfs rebel. They rebel not against the rule of kings, but against the oppression of the current king. They cry out, not for freedom, but instead for an easing of their suffering.
The American War for Independence was different. The People fought for Citizenship, for Rights, for Liberty itself. They established the US Constitution, and guaranteed the Individual Rights of Citizens, in the Bill of Rights, given by God, not government, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
What is the difference? The serfs are demanding the tyrant end his oppression, that he allow them a bit more food, or benefits, while Citizens refuse to allow the government to intrude in their Rights, which are equal to the leader of the government.
Many would pick and choose when they support one or another of the enumerated God-Given Rights, specifically protected in the Bill of Rights, but would deny others their other Rights, when they find them less appealling, or when denial of Rights is deemed expedient. The MSM is particularly frought with hypocritical claims to rights beyond those enumerated, while arguing against the Rights (2nd) of others.
The Boston Bombings provide the most recent example. A 1st year law school dropout could successfully prosecute the case. The evidence is overwhelming, and yet terrorism is not a charge, nor is murder. The excuse is that prosecutors are hedging their bets. They are saying it's not as open and shut a case as everyone that watched the news would note. They are claiming that by not charging the terrorist, now, with murder, they reserve the "right" of the government to charge him later. They point out that McVeigh was also not charged with terrorism, as if that is a reasonable fact. It is a fact, but it is wrong that he was not charged with terrorism, unless the US law defining terrorism as a crime was not yet written. In 1995, and now, my position was that McVeigh should have been tried by a Court Martial, with charges including Treason. He wanted to claim he was a Soldier, and he did in fact have time remaining on his Individual Ready Reserve contract. He should have faced a firing squad, of Soldiers.
In a much more difficult case, McVeigh was convicted for the murder of a handful of Federal Agents. There was no video of him placing the bomb. He was not caught red-handed throwing bombs. LE got lucky that his ideological idiocy convinced him to speed down a highway in a car with no license plate, and a pistol showing under his shirt. Still, he almost was released on the weapons charges. LE got lucky in 1995, because his ideologies told him that the Sheriff's Deputy that pulled him over was a "legitimate" authority figure.
He was not convicted for murdering dozens of kids, or other civilian employees of the government, or senior citizens at the Social Security Admin office. The Janet Reno "Justice" Department and Clinton Administration, had hedged its bets. It did not charge McVeigh with all the murders, because it wanted to reserve "its right" to put him on trial a 2nd time, if the first trial didn't convict him. McVeigh was put in the express line for executions, but his buddy and partner in the act of terrorism is still in the prison system. His buddy only got Life in Prison, and to date, no other prisoner has convicted him to death.
The Bill of Rights says the government has ONE chance to prove your guilt in a crime. It doesn't get to keep trying until it finds a jury that will agree with them. It doesn't get to keep you in jail, or keep you away from a source of income for years, while it keeps trying. It doesn't get to charge you with using an explosive now, and then the effects of that explosive later. It gets ONE chance, and you are presumed innocent, until they do. The jury on the other hand, can convict you of killing the Federal Agents, while finding you "not guilty" of killing the nurse killed by a piece of falling debris hours later.
The Boston Bombing case may very well demonstrate a need for "Immigration Reform," in a way Congress isn't currently discussing, but like it or not, Tsarnaev attained US Citizenship on 9/11/2012. He DOES have Rights, until and unless his citizenship is revoked. He IS an Islamist Terrorist, and it should not be difficult to prove that he perjured himself, under oath, when he swore loyalty to the US and the US Constitution, while acting as an agent of the enemy in attacking American civilians. We DO need to look at the means to prevent such enemies from attaining the shield of US Citizenship, but at the moment, we have an Islamist Terrorist who holds US Citizenship, that should be facing charges of terrorism, treason, murder, and more.
It may be politically expedient, and even popular, to keep putting him on trial, until the warranted death penalty is attained, but it would undermine the Rights of Every American Citizen, if we endorse that. Instead, we should charge him with everything we can in the Boston Bombing case. Throw the book at him. Prove it all. Give him 10 death penalties. The police shootouts may be a separate case, but the two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, and ALL the effects, as well as ALL of the charges from it, are ONE event, and one trial. Terrorism is a Federal charge, because it is an attack on the Nation, on the US Constitution, not just the individuals in the city of the attack.
If we wish to remain, or re-attain, Our position as Citizens, of Equal Rights to the man that presides over OUR govenrment, not serfs, subject to the dictates of the man who Rules our people, we MUST stand up for the Rights of Our Fellow Citizens, even when we find them despicable examples of evil that should have their lives snuffed out. If we wish remain, or re-attain, Liberty, we MUST protect each of the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and we must send Representatives to Congress who uphold their oath to the Constitution, rather than those that pander to the lobbyists that pay their way to maintain their power of office. And at this point, I'd almost say that being a lawyer should be an automatic preclusion to office. Let lawyers argue the law in court, but they lack the ability to write in clear, concise, coherent language.
Evidently, when it is not politically expedient to admit terrorism exists. Tsarnaev, a Chechen Islamist Terrorist who killed 4 people in Boston, wounded hundreds, in two shootouts and three bombings, who had more bombs and had planned more attacks, who ran over his own dying brother and fellow terrorist, is not being charged with terrorism. He is being charged with using a "weapon of mass destruction" (I guess Obama is admitting that Saddam had millions of WMD) and "malicious destruction of property resulting in death." Not only has he not been charged with terrorism, but he has not been charged with murder, or attempted murder.
There are at least two counts of terrorism (two bombs), at least four counts of murder, a count of carjacking, and at least 185 counts of attempted murder (injured), that should be charged against him. These are low-hanging fruit, with sufficient evidence, in the public eye, with which the Obama Administration and Eric Holder's "Justice" Department have chosen to not charge the Islamist Terrorist. The White House was slow to admit that the Boston Bombing was an act of terrorism, but to not charge the Islamist Terrorist with terrorism is a slap in the face to every American, not just those that were victims of the attack.
Tsarnaev attained his US citizenship on 9/11/2012, so I can accept the argument to try him in a civilian court. In addition to the clearcut and obvious charges that should be made against him, due to his US citizenship, additional charges of treason, perjury (swearing an oath to the United States and US Constitution while acting as an agent of the enemy) should be levied and his citizenship should be revoked.
In other news, the Canadians announced today that they have arrested terrorists involved in a plot to attack trains in that country. They were far more forthright, clearly stating that this was a plot by AL-QAEDA, In IRAN. Given that currently, investigators are saying they don't know what connections to other terrorists the Tsarnaev brothers had, it is very interesting that the White House was so quick to say that there was no connection between the Boston Bombing, and the Iranian Al-Qaeda plot on the Northern Border.
The terrorists have not "ended" their war, no matter how badly the politicians want to claim the war is over. There is only one way that one side of a war can end it, of their own accord; surrender. There is only one basic goal that must be recognized to win a war; War must take the necessary steps to remove the enemy's will to fight. It appears that the enemy is closer to that goal, despite their heavier losses, than are we.
"There is only way you can be guaranteed peace, and you can have it in a second. That is to surrender." Ronald Reagan, decades before he became President, during the era that politicians were purporting that cutting Our Defenses, and talking the enemy to death was the "right path." Negotiations in weakness did not end the Cold War, and it has not ended the Terrorists' War on Us. Reagan's buildup of Military Strength did bring the Cold War to an end.
While politicians and police slap each other on the back for their "successes" in Boston, they also continue with their calls to cut defense, and to militarize the police. One resident in the search area described the situation as a "police state." And indeed, one of the goals of terrorism is to induce the government to tighten its grip on civilians, while simultaneously demonstrating the lack of effectiveness of the "security blanket" of the government, until the civilians are fed up. The police cannot protect you. That is not their job. Their job is to arrest criminals that have already committed the crimes.
While the first 7 seven years of the War on Terrorism saw a few modest intrusions on our lives, the last 5 of "Overseas Contingency Operations" have seen (TSA) state sponsored sexual assaults and pornographic xrays at the airports, a government which deems your 3 month old email as theirs to read without a warrant, and require new cell phones to update their location to within a few yards.
"Mr Obama and his intelligence community know the threat from al-Qaeda affiliates, but have chosen to downplay it to the US public." Peter Foster, UK Telegraph
The Administration's policies are not one of ignorance, not anymore. They are policies of stubborn partisanship, and party platform to change the very nature of the US Military, from one prepared for war, to one that is utilized only as part of a coalition in peace-keeping operations. Bill Clinton and Eric Shinseki openly espoused that fundamental shift in the 90's, when the world believed we had entered a new era of peace, but the fact of Islamist Terrorism has hampered this Administration from being as straightforward about its goals. It couches the shift in saying that we will pin our defenses on allies given our best equipment, while stripping our own ranks of its Troops and latest equipment.
Islamist terrorists are not just Al-Qaeda. Indeed, islamism is not just terrorism. Islamist terrorists include Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Quds Force (Iran), Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and many, many others. Yet, partisan supporters of the politician in chief would have us believe that various regional commands of Al-Qaeda aren't even part of Al-Qaeda. While at times they proclaim the core element of the former headquarters of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been defeated, they deny that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, or Al-Qaeda in the Islamic West (Maghreb) are the same organization. And yet, reports continue to point out that Al-Qaeda is still active in Afghanistan, and still strong in Pakistan.
Josef Biden has stated both that the Taliban have always been the enemy, and that they are not the enemy, but the Taliban are some of the most fundamental of Islamists, and some of the most atrocious of terrorists, superceded perhaps by the Chechens, in the department of atrociousness.
Islamism is stronger now than it has ever been. It has grown and spread and taken over governments in the last 3 years, through "Arab Spring." The battle lines which had shrunk in 2008, have expanded greatly since 2010. Mubarrak had "contained" Islamists in Egypt for decades. Bashir had pulled back from open support of Islamist terrorists in the Sudan, when he saw the 2001 results in Afghanistan. His final efforts in Darfur were finally ended. Saudi Arabia had quieted and Yemen was slowed. The tide in Iraq had shifted.
Today, Islamism rules Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, and is fighting for Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, and Libya. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey are trending towards, not away from Islamism. And while political Islamism espouses the use of tyranny, rather than openly supporting terrorism, to achieve its goal of establishing the caliphate, of conversion of ALL to Islam, it remains diametrically opposed to Freedom, and the Rights of Citizenship, of Human Rights themselves.
The brutality of Islamists towards religious freedom can be seen in the imprisonment (and death penalties in many cases) of ex-Muslims converted to Christianity in Iran, in Egypt, and in Pakistan. Riots have been seen in Kabul, Afghanistan, over the existence of Bibles written in Dari. All Islamism is political, though it does not all use terrorism as its means. It prefers tyranny. In fact, the goal of Islamist terrorism is to attain the reins of government, so that its tyranny can be more complete. The great migration of religiously oppressed from Tunisia, Egypt, and Somalia are testament to this. And many of those religiously oppressed, like the Bahai of Iran, are Muslims.
For the Coptic Christians in Egypt, the distinction between the fire bombs and explosives of Islamist terrorists during the Mubarrak era and the attacks of Islamist tyrannical government forces under Mosri, is the distinction of lost hope. It is the distinction of being opposed by the government to supported and enforced by the government. While Mubarrak never took the measures Bashir Assad did in wiping off the map, and face of the earth, an entire town for supporting the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, he did keep illegal, though ineffectively suppressed, the organization which called for the brutal oppression of Human Rights.
The Boston attack should serve as a reminder that Islamist Terrorists have not "ended" the war, but so should have the Little Rock, and Fort Hood attacks. In each of these, the terrorists succeeded in killing unarmed Americans, but these are not the only reminders that the terrorists have not lost their will to fight. The panty bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Wrigley Field bomber, the Christmas Tree bomber in Seattle, and many, many more attempted attacks have been downplayed as "lone wolves" or forgotten due to the failures of the enemy to execute the attacks.
Like so many of these others, the Chechen Islamist brothers will likely be played off as "self-islamized, home grown, lone wolves," but the Islamization of those with US passports or greencards is not a new factor in this war. It has long been known that Islamists were trying (and succeeding) to convert violent criminals in our jails. Adam Gadahn, of California, was already a ranking member of Al-Qaeda on 9/11, and the "American Taliban" was captured on the battlefield in the early days of the War in Afghanistan in 2001. It was only a few years ago, that 7 gang-bangers went on a rampage in Oakland, CA in the name of Islamism, after their conversions. The government has known for a decade that the strategy of the enemy was that the first wave of terrorists would be Saudi, the second wave others, and the third stage of attacks carried out by those with US passports and green cards.
A stereo-typical terrorist cell has 4-6 members. It is purposely de-centralized. Tamleran was known to the FBI. He was reported to them by a foreign country, probably Russia, as a potential terrorist. He likely had religious leaders, and terrorist directors, at the Mosque partially paid for by governments in Massachusetts. His Islamization did not occur in a vacuum, and his Uncle has clearly stated that the attack was a dishonor to the family and to all Chechens. But the Chechens were in Afghanistan in 2001, and they are still there in 2013, in lesser numbers, but more often across the border in Pakistan.
While I will agree with Jonn, at This Aint Hell, that Obama was not directly responsible for the Boston Attacks, I must also recognize some of the points made by the UK Telegraph, that the Administration's attempts to claim the War on Terrorism is over, that Al-Qaeda is defeated, has led, partially, to the complacency of the people.
And while "Blame Bush" is overplayed, he didn't quite get it right when he only told the American people to go about their lives. In no way, should he have espoused that the people live their lives in fear, but he should have found a way to give the people a meaningful purpose in the War against Terrorists. He had the foresight to know that this war would not be over quickly, that it would take decades to win, and the humility to recognize that he must change his party platform on "nation building," but in some way, the American People needed to be engaged in the efforts, as were the People, in WWII. That doesn't mean recycling metal, and food rations, or even higher taxes, but it should mean a heightened sense of Situational Awareness.
Neither Bush nor Obama can be blamed for idiots walking around with eyes glued to their iPods, but both should have told the American People to be aware of those around them, to recognize terrorists and criminals. Instead of demonizing Warriors as PTSD afflicted for their heightened sense of awareness after having seen the evil in this world, they should have sponsored people having an awareness of what's around them. They should have reminded the Nation that being aware was not the same as being afraid, that instead that knowing their environs was an innoculation to fear.
The Office of the President, has a mandate to preside over the government, and to lead the Nation, to explain to the People "why" a war is in their interests, and how they can help win it. It is not enough for him to say I'll do what I want, what I believe, because I won the election, particularly not in these times, where we choose from the less bad choice, rather than those we truly believe prepared for the Office. It is not enough for the President to understand the importance of fighting terrorists there, so we don't see American Civilians murdered here. It is his duty to explain that "why" to the American People, so they understand it, particularly when his partisan opponents see the lack of explaination as the means to undermine him, and the Nation, for political purposes of attaining power. And not giving that "why" was Bush's failure.
Three were killed and more than 100 were injured. Two explosive devices (at least) were used. The target was not the military, or even government officials that could be characterized as having a legitimate role in military affairs. That makes it terrorism. Terrorism has a goal of inflicting terror in an otherwise unafflicted population. It does so by making a population feel as if the terrorists can strike at will against whomever they desire. It does so by making security and government officials appear incapable of protecting the populace from the terrorists. It has a goal of convincing the population to force the government to bow to its desires. It does so, for a profit.
It does not matter if the terrorists are white, arab, asian, black, or hispanic. An act of terrorism is terrorism, period. Terrorism is not just a prank, like setting a trashcan on fire, and not just a crime conducted by organized crime.
It is not just a crime, but also an act of war. It is not just an act of war, but a war crime. As an act of war, the Geneva Convention affords that those involved can be held, without trial, until the cessation of hostilities. As war criminals, the Geneva Conventions hold that they can be tried, and if convicted, held beyond the end of hostilities. In particular circumstances, the Geneva Conventions afford a death penalty to war criminals, including those who use terrorism as a tactic or strategy.
While there is no substantial proof in public that this was an act of international terrorism, there is less evidence that it was a case of domestic terrorism. While the media pontificated yesterday that it could have been an innocent natural gas explosion, and when they finally abandoned that theory turned to suggesting it was domestic, their reasoning for both suggestions was flawed.
One of their "explanations" was that the devices were too crude and too small. Everyday, more crude and smaller bombs, aka IED's, are used in places like India, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Mali, and Pakistan. In fact, the documented cases of using a pressure cooker bomb have ties to the Taliban, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and even in New York City's Times Square.
Another of their suggestions was that it was "tax day." The McVeigh types have less connection to 4/15 than they do to 4/19. The 19th of April is the anniversary of Waco, of Ruby Ridge, and of the Murrah Building attack in Oklahoma City, and events deeper in History. One would hope that the backlash from OKC would be enough to force the McVeigh types re-think such a tactic. In the aftermath, American recoiled against such groups, and McVeigh's hopes that it would turn into a Revolution fell flat on the reality that we don't like people killing kids, or attacking unarmed civilians. The terrorist attack in OKC hurt his "cause" far more than anything the government has ever done.
Moreover, the McVeigh types have a beef with the government, not those running the Boston streets. Their target is far more likely to be a federal government installation than a sporting event.
Some have suggested that the Boston Marathon was "not international" or "not global enough" to be a viable target for Islamist terrorists. First, Islamists don't need a target to be international, but this was by far international. More than 90 countries were represented by the runners. Nearly half the nations in the world were represented. That's international! Al-Qaeda in particular does not need an international flavor to an attack. The Times Square attack was less international than this. They gain financial support by attacking Americans. They have a stated position that ALL Americans are considered to be militants, regardless of whether they are running the streets of Boston, or defending a base in Eastern Afghanistan.
Some whackos have suggested that US Government agents conducted the attack on orders of top US politicians. Simply idiotic. Politicians will use any event that pops up to make themselves sound more compassionate, stronger, and get their pet legislation passed, but they have no need to create the events. There are enough psychos out there that will create the events for them.
But the question of the common man is "What can or should I do?!?!" The answer is to reach down inside, and find your resolve, your resolve to not be afraid. There were more people killed and injured on the streets of Massachusetts by traffic accidents, than by explosives, last week. Of 310 Million Americans, this act of terrorism only killed 3 people. We don't fear cars, nor phones on which text messaging has become the number one factor in accident fatalities.
That does not mean that you should pretend terrorism does not exist. You should have a plan for what you would do if someone entered your building or office or shopping mall with a bomb, or even a firearm. You should think about this NOW. You should decide NOW, under what circumstances you would KILL the attacker, and consider the means you would use. You should decide NOW how you would assist the injured, learn how to help the injured, and when your duties would require instead that you protect your child or others.
And you should come to grips with the fact that following an explosive event, your pure intentions to help, could mean that you're just a person in the way. You should come to grips with the fact that an explosion occurs in a split second. You need not fear it. An explosion will kill some, injure others, and leave others unscathed. It is over in an instant. There is little anyone can do about it, and most victims of it have no idea it is coming. You can keep your eye out for suspicious behavior, for suspicious packages, and avoid them, or report them.
What else can you do? You can give to Pro-Troop and Catastrophic events Non-Profits. The American Red Cross not only runs blood banks, but assists with victims, in these types of events, as well as natural catastrophies. If you give in the name of this event, they may use your money for the next one. Our Troops are on the front lines, risking their lives on a daily basis for your safety.
You can pressure your politicians, your Congressman, your Senator, to call terrorism what it is, and to continue to take the fight to the enemy, rather than to bow to pressure to prematurely "end" a war the enemy has no intention of ending.
You can educate yourself on the enemy. You don't have to know the differences in theology of Sunni, Shia, Bahai, Salafi, and Sufi, but you should have a concept of the atrocities of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Weather Underground, and the Animal Liberation Foundation. You should understand the difference between Islamsists and Muslims.
You must come to grips with the fact that evil does exist in the world, that there are a minority of psychotic people who will kill, maim, injure, or steal from you, for nothing more than their own personal entertainment, but possibly by justifying their actions as "part of the greater good," or even to "teach you a lesson." What stands between you and evil, are the Sheepdogs, Military and Law Enforcement, but when the Wolf knocks on your door, it is YOU that is your first defense, no matter how willing the Sheepdog is to deal death to the Wolf that would do you harm.
"Situational Awareness" or being observant and alert to the world around you, to the possibility of evil knocking on your door, is your most potent defense. Paranoia is your enemy, as is anger and blissful ignorance, but recognizing when someone is behaving abnormally can save your life. If the hair on the back of your neck stands up, don't ignore it. Explore why your subconscious is warning you.
Having a plan, preconceived, of what you would do, if you were confronted with any variety of bad situations will help you, if you face any of them. The fewer responses you can identify for the greatest number of incidents is the best. People "freeze" because their mind is overwhelmed, and cannot decide between responses. Decide, and consider, ahead of time, for as many events as you can imagine.
But don't stick your head back in the sand, and don't allow fear to stop you from doing the things you must do. Live your life, but be aware of your surroundings. Support Our Troops, and their mission to keep you safe, but be ready if the enemy slips in, to your door. The Israelis have done it for decades. Our Troops volunteered to fight the enemy in their backyard, so you could be safe in yours.
Laughing Wolf has additional tips for planning for and acting in an emergency situation (natural disaster or terrorist attack) and Assoluta Tranquillita has more common sense to add to the discussion.
Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of England a few years after I left 'England, MY England,' (D H Lawrence reference
for those unaware,) but over the years I have followed her career with
interest and watched her undeniable impact on the British way of life.
When I first heard this morning of her death from a stroke, the first thing that came to mind was her unflinching response to IRA Bobby Sands' hunger strike, and her unswerving decision to reclaim the Falkland Islands after the Argentinians decided to occupy those British territories. (An interesting video on the Empire striking back, here.)
In
the hours following the announcement that yes, she has actually died, I
have been listening to the global responses to her death. I don't know
that there is ever a good time to die - for any of us - but I have to
think that Margaret Thatcher would not be pleased with the state of the
world today. It occurs to me that the current POTUS should probably be
relieved that he has not had to face the indomitable Iron Lady during
his own term(s) in office. Margaret Thatcher's principles and
philosophy were diametrically opposed to every decision, in any arena,
which he and his 'most transparent ever' government have forced on the
American people - often behind closed doors.
Regardless of the aspect of government, or legislation, or budget of it, "It's complicated," is an apt description, and it should not be. The US Constitution was written in plain English, on 4 pages, with strong, concise language. It clearly defines what is the responsibility of the Federal government, what is within the authority of the State governments, and with the Bill of Rights, what are the God-Given Rights of the Citizens who allow the existence of the Federal Government.
The primary responsibility of governance falls upon the States. The Federal government is charged with external policies; war and diplomacy. And where Federal government is concerned, it is the Representatives of the People that are given the power of the purse, and without which no law can be enacted. The Constitution creates 3 branches of federal government, one to legislate, one to preside over the affairs of government, and one to pass judgement when conflict occurs. All those that take position within the government are required to swear an oath to the Constitution, not the political party on whose ticket they ran.
Consider the prophecies of doom regarding "sequester." If the chief politician is to be believed, there will soon be kids turned away from school, criminals let out into the streets, firemen left to watch homes burn, long lines at the airport, as well as a new invasion of illegal aliens and gnashing of the teeth. And all of this is to come because the Representatives of the People have not submitted to greater taxation of the most taxed population on Earth.
Let's look at the dire prophecy again. The US Constitution does not authorize federal involvement in schools, in local law enforcement, or in fire fighting. That is not to say that government has no role in these things, but rather that these are the responsibility of State and local government, not the Federal government. The taxes collected, laundered through bureacrats at the Federal level, and returned in lesser amounts to the districts and States is money that is not available for the Citizens to pay directly to the Teachers, Firefighters, and Policemen through local taxation.
Contrast the US Constitution's 4 pages with ObamaCare's more than 2000 pages. Any Citizen with a basic grasp of grammar can understand those 4 pages, while even the politicians that sponsored ObamaCare noted they could not comprehend ObamaCare, even with their law degree. While lawyers of the chief politician argued that it was a tax, and hence allowed under the 16th Amendment, the politicians themselves argued that it wasn't.
And even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by the chief politician of the "other party," argued that as a tax, it is Constitutional for the politicians to force Citizens to purchase a service, it is not. Domestic government is not within the Constitutional authorities of the Federal government. Insurance, corporate law, and legislation of Citizens falls under the responsibilities and authorities of the State Governments.
When one considers that for the first 120 years of American History, the Federal government was funded primarily by a tax on alcohol, and tariffs, both of which remain today, and without any income tax, and that it was during that time that Andrew Jackson was the only person to preside over a government of zero debt, one must ask how the most taxed nation on Earth has a deficit greater than the budgets of vast majority of governments on Earth, combined.
The Federal Government has grown to such a great and complicated size, that not even the highest levels of bureacrats or politicians can accurately state its size or nature. Even the relatively small Department of Veteran Affairs has such a complicated set of regulations, and unionized disorganization of bureaucrats, that not even they can understand its complete nature. The much larger, if better organized, Department of Defense has published enough regulations and manuals to fill whole libraries, and require a specialized cadre of lawyers to prosecute. And those are Constitutional bureacracies.
The Constitutional role of Federal government was so small that it was only required for the Congress to convene annually. There was that little for them to do, and it was up to the man elected to preside over the government to implement their decisions. The majority of laws effecting the average Citizen were to be enacted by State governments, not Congress, and certainly not Executive dictates.
If Americans will elect Representatives, instead of politicians, that return government to its Constitutional bounds, Freedom can be returned, deficits erased, and taxes decreased. Prosperity will return. And it really isn't complicated, or at least does not need to be. Yes, State taxes would increase, but to an overall total less than those amounts paid today, without the deficits and debt.
In many minds, Freedom and Democracy are synonyms, where benevolent governments obey the will of the people, and prosperity follows. The spread of "democracy" has been highly heralded in recent years, after a few years of slogans that we can't force "democracy" on others. Our Founding Fathers did not predict the "elections" of Islamist dictators in Iran or Egypt, or the perpetual "re-elections" of Communist Premiers in the Socialist Democratic Republics, but they did understand that democracy can be a detriment to Freedom.
They understood that those that seek power, i.e. politicians, can never be satisified with the amount of power they attain. As they looked around the political landscape of the day, they saw Princes who dreamed of Kingdoms, and Kings who could not be satisfied with Empires.
The Founders rebelled against monopolistic power of Monarchs, against the most democratic Empire of their day, because it had usurped the Rights of the People.
The 20th Century brought a new kind of tyranny, Communism and Socialism, whereby dictators ruled completely by convincing the workers to shed their blood in pursuit of the tyrant's governmental monopoly. Attempts of Empire by Hitler's National Socialist Party and Stalin's International Socialist Worker's Party were equally tyrannical and murderous, all in the name of "the People."
The deciding defining difference between the democracies of the Iron curtain, Islamist Iran, the democratic monarchies, and the United States, was and is the Bill of Rights. The Constitution affords no caveat to the Sovereign Citizen's Right to Free Speech, to Bear Arms, or to Remain Silent in their own defense. The Constitution sets itself as above all desires, or laws, of the politicians. It sets the Rights of the People, above their democratic right to vote the Rights away from their fellow Citizens, or the politicians democratically elected to represent them.
The missing link in "pro-democracy revolutions" of the Middle East, as well "Occupy" movements, has been that while rebelling against a suppression of rights (or perceived rights), they espoused the denial of Freedoms of others. Egypt did not even have a Constitution when the Islamist President called for a worldwide ban on speech that "slandered" Mohammed. While committing violence against fellow citizens, "Occupiers" called for the banning of other Citizens to start or run businesses. Claiming to be "the 99%," they have an unusual number of the top 1% of wage earners, and unrepresentatively small number of "the masses" they claim to be.
It isn't that the rich elites of socialist/communist movements wish to give up their own financial well-being or power, but that they wish to consolidate even greater power under their own hand of government. Unsatisfied with the shared financial successes in a competitive system, they want to control all finance, in a government monopoly.
But large swathes of politicians find the chants of the entitled "Occupiers" intoxicating, and hoped it would find traction. The growth of government means a growth of power of the politicians that rule the government, and popular support for the monopolism of swathes of the economy by those political elite would mean monopolies of power.
While democracy makes allowances for the voters to suppress the Rights of others, Freedom prevents even the most powerful, with widespread support, from removing those Rights. Freedom means protecting the right, but not the implementation of Speech calling to curtail Free Speech. Freedom cannot survive, without the force of the strong protecting the weak, from the masses.
Freedom not only means the Right to pursue success, and happiness, but the right to fail in those pursuits, on one's own merits, and to keep whatever was gained, or to lose what was risked in those pursuits.
While Iran has a "right to speech," as well, it is caveated that the government can ban speech it doesn't like, and does ban that speech which is "anti-Islamic."
"We, The People" laid down rules and restrictions on the Government in the US Constitution, which not even the popular will of we the people can take away, no matter how power hungry the politicians we democratically elect may be. And when, we, the people, accept the specious slogans of the party to overturn the God-given Rights of Our Fellow Citizens, we have given away Our Own Freedoms, and in the end, our own prosperity.
A popular question in politics has been "What is the American Culture?" or "What are American Values?" There has been an emphasis in America placed on "multi-culturism" which has implied an equivalency between American Culture to "racism," and excluded it from the realm of multi-culturism. The answer of would be rulers is that there is no such thing as "an American Way of Life," as the real answer is at odds with their own greed for power.
The truth is that American values and culture do not exclude cultural aspects of immigrants of other countries, but rather it is a culture of God-given Rights and Liberties. Americanism means that the Citizen, not the ruler, is the Sovereign. It is a largely unspoken and undefined definition of the American Way of Life. It is implicit in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and understood, if unstated, by those that argue for the restoration of principles and policies of the US Constitution.
The American way of life is not democracy. Democratic election of Representatives in a Republican form of government, was simply the means used to achieve personal freedom, and sovereign liberty of the Citizenry.
Competing forms of government: monarchies, socialism, islamism, theocracies, and the like that have come before, during, and after the "American Experiment" were distinctly different because the government ruled the lives of the citizenry, rather than being the servants of it. Whether King, Ceasar, Pharaoh, Emperor, Premier, Caliph, Holy Roman See, or "Dear Leader," the difference was that these rulers dictated the rules to their subjects, rather than bowing to the rules written by the Citizenry.
The subjects of these rulers were forced to beg the Sovereign for the means of survival, and called the Sovereign a tyrant when allowed to keep too little of their labors.
The "American Experiment" was less that it afforded the Citizenry a means to peaceably change the politicians in government, than it was that it placed the Citizen as Sovereign over the government, and those politicians, by binding them with the constraints of the US Constitution. While politicians have clung to the title of "public servant," they have shed the cloak of what it means to be a Representative.
The American way of life required a new name for the senior executive of government, for he was to preside over the government, not rule the lives of the People it served. He was the President, not the Commisar, King, Emperor, or Czar. He was to preside over the daily business of running the government, based on the authorizations of the legislation, budgets, and constraints of the People's Representatives, and the US Constitution, not dictate to the Citizenry what they could or could not do, or own.
Should the "Post American Century" prove to be a reality, it will not be that the resulting economic prosperity has waned, but rather that the concept of the Sovereign Citizen has been removed from reality. The prosperity of the People, and of the Nation, is a measure of the results of Liberty, not the measure of the American way of life. While that prosperity has attracted many that have not grasped the concept that government is subservient to the people, but Liberty prevents their belief that government is a tool to bar others their own Rights, prosperity is the result, not democracy, of Liberty.
There are aspects of some cultures and religions that are not within the American Culture. Among these are those that would ban speech as a "hate crime," or blasphemy, or that would prevent one religion from converting others from it.
And, as the American way of life places the Citizen as Sovereign to the government, the servants running the government of the People, has no authority to remove or forbid property, including firearms, to its Sovereign, even if the Citizens' Right to Free Speech convinces others of the Citizenry that "something must be done" to include the removal of other Sovereign Citizen's Rights.
The American way of life, the American Culture, means that Sovereign Citizens accept responsibility for their actions, in return for their Rights to their Liberties. It means that they must respect the Sovereign Rights of Fellow Citizens, even when they dislike the manner in which those rights are executed. It means that the government is authorized to step in, only when one Citizen (or government) interferes in the Rights of another, not to remove those Sovereign Rights of the Citizen who has not. It means that sending a bullet into another Citizen's land is an infraction, while the sound of that round being fired is not.
The erosion of these principles has occurred only with the tacit approval of the Citizen, and with the greed of greater power by those that desire to be politicians and rulers, rather than Representatives and servants of their district. The erosion has occurred by means of promises of delving out small bounties of "free" things, taken at greater cost than if purchased directly, from those it is given. The erosion has occurred by means of specious slogans by the would be rulers marketed to the beneficiaries of those "free" things, in exchange for a few Rights removed here or there.
For example, public housing is given freely to those that will promise not to own firearms, and are willing to commit to less in income. For those willing to live in a state of "poverty," by American standards, a financial incentive is available in the form of free housing.
When the American Citizenry have accepted their role as subjects of the Ruler, of the Government, then the "Post-American Century" will have begun. It will not have been a "move forward," but a return to the past, with the illusion that elections have afforded the subjects a choice in who rules their lives, and titles that have lost their meanings clung to, in order to maintain that illusion. The "public servant" who decides the fate of "citizens" is not a servant, but a bureacrat of the ruler whose dictates it enforces. The "President" who rules its people, rather than presides over their subservient government can be as great a tyrant as any King or Czar, as the Iranian People can attest. Then again, elections in Iran were emplaced solely to provide that illusion, not to provide the people a voice in their government.
Following the terrorist attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, in which Ambassador Stevens, and three US Veterans, working for the US Government were killed, a number of Flag Officers, Generals and Admirals have had their careers or positions cut short. Rumors are beginning to circulate that the Russian Military Intelligence Service, the GRU, has concluded that the Flag Officers were fired due to a fear by Obama that they were plotting a coup d'etat. Others are speculating that the same officers were fired for refusing orders to ignore pleas of help by the US diplomats in Benghazi.
These officers include the AfriCom commander, General Carter Ham, the CentCom commander, General Mattis, and, a strike group commander, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette. This would be in addition to General David Petraeus resigning in the wake of the attack on exposure of an investigation into an affair, and General Joseph Dunford, 2nd in Command of the Marine Corps suddenly stepping down, and General John Allen, who is the ISAF (Afghanistan) commander.
While little has been said on why most of these officers are suddenly being replaced early, resigning, retiring, or relieved, vague allegations have been made against some of them, such as "questionable decision making" or unproven and unsubstantiated allegations of improper emails. There is little doubt that so many senior officers having their careers cut short in such a short period of time would spark interest by Russian Intelligence. Intelligence services are always interested in the changes of leadership, the why's, and the implications of the replacements. There is no doubt a report on it, somewhere in the Kremlin.
On this side of the pond, we should have a public accounting for the strange departures of so many Flag Officers, as it does raise questions, and drive rumors.
Is there a possibility that Obama fears a coup? It is a possibility. Those that crave power are often narcissistic, and paranoid. If it's possible that he fears one, is it possible that there is a chance of a coup? Highly doubtful. Our military officers have served under Republicans and Democrats, short of the young lieutenants, who joined in the last 4 years. There is a significant independence of politics in the military. The flag officers in question are not in Washington, for the most part, so they don't have the physical capacity to do so either. Unlike many countries, the opportunity for US Generals to take over the reins of government is incredibly remote, even if they had the motivation and internal support for it.
There are Generals that are very political, as Admiral Mullen and General Dempsey demonstrate, but they served under President Bush, before openly using their positions in support of Obama's politics. So, if Obama fears a coup, it is an unrational fear, ie. paranoia.
Obama does have a record of firing Generals that don't toe the party line, whether they support the party and him, or not. Examples include every General that has been in command in Afghanistan since he took office: General McKiernan, General McChrystal, General Petraeus, and General Allen, none of which served a normal tour as combatant commander, and only one of which is still in the military, but whose next position, as well as current position, is unknown and un-nominated. Several Generals have been nominated for what amounts to a demotion: General Allen (since withdrawn) for ISAF to EurCom commander, General Petraeus from CentCom to ISAF commander, and General Dunford from Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps to ISAF Commander (possibly withdrawn).
The frequent change of command in Afghanistan has contributed to a flailing effort there. Different leaders have different styles, and different ways of accomplishing the same goal, but there has yet to be a commander in charge since 2009 that was able to bring his way into fruition. Consequently, violence in the country has been higher than 2008 (and every year prior) in every year since 2008. Despite claims of "progress," the "end" of the war will be on the heels of its most difficult years, and without victory.
Admiral Charles M. Gaouette had assumed command of Carrier Strike Group 3 in April, 2012. Of the current round of firings, his is the most unusual. He had served less than a year in the position and was relieved during the middle of a "float," which occurs only in the most significant of circumstances, not normally for "questionable judgment." It generally takes proof of a major error, like shooting at civilian craft, or invading a non-warring country, without orders.
According to some rumors, General Ham was physically restrained during the Benghazi attack, for attempting to assist American defenders, and relieved of command by his 2nd in command. Authority for such moves would have had to have been ordered from levels higher than the subordinate officer, ie. General Dempsey, the Secretary of Defense, and/or the President. These kinds of things happen in Hollywood more often than in the US Military.
Nominations by the POTUS for promotions and positions of General Officers are rarely opposed by the Senate. I can't think of a single instance when a nomination has been denied, and only one, General Pace, that the Reid led Senate made known that would be opposed, and hence his continued position was not nominated by then President Bush. And despite rumors and political meanderings, until this POTUS, there has been little substantiation that Flag Officers were being terminated for political reasons, at least in the United States.
Politicians have terminated Generals for other reasons. Abraham Lincoln fired Generals like Donald Trump fires celebrities, likely extending the Civil War by years, but that is an example of why politicians should stay out of military decisions, rather than why Generals should stay out of politics. Hitler and Stalin were both known for not only firing, but executing Generals, and that too proved disasterous.
General MacArthur was terminated for openly opposing the restrictions placed on him in the Korean War, and the war was fought to a truce, and still today threatens to become a shooting war again.
The question in my mind is not whether these Generals were considering a coup. I seriously doubt that. The question, for me, is whether they told the hard truth the politician did not want to hear; ie. that Al-Qaeda is growing stronger (due to the policies of the POTUS), and that they wanted to, or attempted to do something to change that, either in the Battle of Benghazi, or in an attempt to persuade the politicians about the greater War on Terror.
My hope is that the Generals that have served honorably, and retired gracefully, will soon step up and tell the truth about the situation, but that is rare for good Generals. More often, the Great Generals, like Petraeus and Schwarzkopf maintain silence in retirement, unlike the political generals such as Wesley Clark and Shinsucki. And unless the Generals (retired) do step up to the plate, it will continue to be left up to the former NCO's and Colonels to speak out.
In the meantime, the Benghazi and Afghanistan commissions of Congress should call these Generals to testify. The American People deserve to know if the Generals are guilty of misconduct, or they were fired for political reasons. The American People deserve to know if the Generals were ready to save Americans' lives, even if their politicians were not.
To begin with, let's get this straight: the government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. We're making the government, reluctantly, because its a necessary evil, but we're limiting it because well, history proves that government usually abuses power (Preamble).
So, we're going to select Representatives by election, and they are the ones that are going to write all laws. If they suggest a law, the President then has a choice to make it a law or not. The Representatives are going to the people we think are the most level-headed, and smartest, and most like us. ONLY Our Representatives can suggest increasing taxes on us, and they're the ones that will tell the government how much it can spend.
We get to decide when we hold elections, through Our State governments, and the politicians have to work, at least once a year, in December. Since we already have governments (States), and they're closer to us than you are, we're going to have Our Representatives at those governments send Senators to also keep you in line. We'll pay you for the work you do.
Our Representatives can fire the President if he breaks the law or becomes a tyrant.
Don't be taxing us into the poorhouse. Don't be spending Our Money like drunken politicians. You have to tell us how every dime is spent. All your taxes have to be uniform to all. You can't be playing favorites. Only Our Representatives can borrow money.
Our Representatives will make the rules for the Military, and pay Our Troops and build places for training and living of the Troops. And before you go starting wars, you have to convince Our Representatives that we should go to war. No one gets to use Our Troops against us, unless there's a rebellion.
You can't make laws against things that already happened. Any laws you make are only about the future, and no one is guilty of breaking the law before it was made.
Our Representatives get to make the laws for what goes on in Washington DC too. They get to decide about printing money, building post offices and roads to them, and make copyright and patent laws, as well as punishing pirates.
Don't be taxing us a bunch of money. And don't be spending Our Money without Our Representatives saying you can.(Article 1)
And because we know that there needs to be someone to conduct the day to day business with the world, we'll pay a guy to preside over the government we authorize. He doesn't have any authority over us. His job is to run the government, not to rule the People, us. Remember, we're the boss, not you. You don't rule us. We rule you. You work for us.
He can talk to the Ambassadors of other countries and make agreements with them, for us, if Our Senators say its okay. And if the Senators say so, he can pay people to help him run the government. If the Senators aren't around, he can hire someone TEMPORARILY until they start working again.(Article 2)
And since we know people are always arguing over stupid things, we'll let the President suggest judges that Our Senators have to approve, to settle disputes. The judges get to judge. They don't get to make any laws. You have to let us decide, by jury, if the person did what you said they did. And you can't be hauling him off to another place to have the trial.
And you can't be killing people just because you call them traitors. You have to prove they actually helped the enemy, while we're at war, not just because they said they don't like how you act or you think they insulted you. To prove they are traitors, you have to have two people swear they did. (Article 3)
Citizens of one State get to move to other States and be Citizens there if they want to, and the new State will trust the other one's papers. Criminals will be sent back to the State where they did the crime. All the States will be run by Representatives elected by the People too. The Federal government is responsible for making sure foreigners don't invade their borders. (Article 4)
If you don't like the rules we made for you, you can suggest changes, but 2/3rds of the politicians have to convince 3/4ths of the States to change Our Rules. (Article 5)
We'll pay the debt you racked up in the old government, and all the agreements you made.
Our government, Our Rules. These Rules supercede all rules, agreements, and anything else you say or do. If you want to make a rule we said you can't, it doesn't mean anything, no matter how many times you say it does. Now, before you can be part of Our Government, swear that you'll obey Our Rules. (Article 6)
These Rules are in effect as soon as 3/4ths of Our States say so. (Article 7)
Yeah, we figured you'd get too big for your britches, so here are some more rules for you:
We get to say what we want to say, where we want to say it. We can do it in churches, papers, or in petitions and protests. And you can't tell us what religion to have, nor stop us from praying. You can't stop us from telling you that you're a bunch of blood sucking leeches. (1st Amendment)
We get to keep Our Guns. Guns are important to keep us Free. You ain't takin' our guns. (2nd Amendment)
Our Troops won't get free lodging on Our Property, unless there's a war going on. Otherwise you have to pay us rent if you want us to give Soldiers a bed. (3rd Amendment)
You don't get to look through Our Stuff unless you can prove to a Judge that we did something wrong. You don't get to take Our Stuff from us either. That means you can't go through any of Our Stuff, not our pockets, nor our homes, nor our papers. You can't search NONE of Our Stuff, unless you prove to a judge that we did something wrong. (4th Amendment)
You can't try to kill someone, unless a bunch of us (grand jury) says there's a reason to give him a trial. You can't take Our Stuff, until you've proven to us (due process/court) that someone did something wrong or you pay us a fair price for it. You can't keep trying to prove someone guilty. You get one chance. You can't take his Stuff, his Liberty, or his Life, until you have proved he's a criminal. (5th Amendment)
If you're trying to convince us he's a criminal, you have to have the trial right away. It's got to be in public and in the place you said he did it. You can't be using the infamous "someone" as a witness to your allegations. Either the person says it to the guy on trial, or it doesn't get said. And the guy you accuse gets to have one of those educated, double-speaking lawyers too. You're not the only one that gets to hire the liars. (6th Amendment)
Any time more than twenty bucks is on the line, we get to have a bunch of us decide, a jury of us. And if a jury says we're not guilty, you can't take us to a different court and try again.(7th Amendment)
You can't make us pay a bunch a money while we're waiting for a trial. And you can't be making up cruel punishments, even if our peers say we're guilty.(8th Amendment)
Just cause we didn't tell you you couldn't do something doesn't mean you can. Anything we didn't say you could do, you can't. Remember, WE are YOUR bosses, not the other way around. (9th Amendment)
Let me say this again, if we didn't tell you you can do it, you can't. Anything we didn't say you could do, are things we get to do, or Our States get to do. (10th Amendment)
Like we said in the beginning (Preamble), WE, THE PEOPLE, are in charge of the government. You work for us, not the other way around. We tell YOU what to do, what you can and can't do. Don't be getting too big for your britches. Don't start thinking you can tell us what to say or do, or what we can or can't own, or what we can or can't buy, or what we have to buy. Don't be trying to take Our Stuff, or looking through it.
If a Soldier were to disregard the 3rd Amendment, and occupy the house of a Citizen, the people would be outraged. If he were to follow the orders of a superior and execute a prisoner, they would demand his imprisonment. There is clarity in such cases, and the Soldier understands these immoral and unlawful orders may not and can not be carried out. Superiors understand that such orders will not be carried out and do not utter them. They have sworn an Oath, to protect the Constitution, and have learned when orders are Superceded by higher law.
But what of the lesser transgressions? The more ambigious legal conundrums?
The 4th Amendment guarantees the Right of Citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...."
What if a bureacrat, or law enforcement official is armed with a law which requires him to search persons and documents? What if it is the job of the bureacrat to search the documents, without a Warrant, or to search their persons without cause? To refuse would be cause for termination? Does not the legislation of Congress or the Orders of the President make lawful what the Constitution prohibits?
No, it does not become Constitutional or lawful just because Congress or the President says so, just as it would not become lawful for the Soldier to commit murder just because he was ordered to do so.
The bureacrat knows however that if he refuses an un-Constitutional order, he will be terminated. In most cases, he was hired by the government to do precisely what he is being ordered to do, though also swearing upon employment to uphold the Constitution which prohibits it. The bureacrat knows that behind him are a hundred people willing to accept those orders, for the sake of the high pay, bountiful benefits, and "safety" of a government job.
So, the bureacrat justifies, in his own mind, that the citizenry is paying him to follow the dictates of politicians, despite the Rights enumerated in the Constitution. The politicians praise the bureacrats as "public servants," even as they order them to disregard the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, to which they have sworn to uphold.
And these abuses are accepted by the People, as recognized by the Founders themselves, in the Declaration of Independence, "that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." They further noted "that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." In most cases, the people ignore the abuses, because they convince themselves it's only someone else abused, and often "that there's no reason to worry if you're not breaking the law."
History is replete with tyrannical governments, and the bureacrats which supported them, which subjected and are subjecting their people to far greater abuses than are our rulers, but those in power in Washington should take note that Liberty is ingrained in the DNA of the American People, that it is not a generation removed that the People would have stood up against the current dictates of Washington.
In such discussions, politicians will often point to the "will of the people" as justification for legislation which subverts the Supreme Law of the Land, but there is a reason that the Founders established a Republic, rather than a democracy. There is a reason that they established the Bill of Rights as supreme to any popular legislation by the majority of rulers in Washington, or even a Treaty signed by them.
And while the politicians claim to speak in the name of the people, they do so as they see fit, and do what they desire, regardless of the voice of the people. TARP, the UAW bailout, and ObamaCare were all opposed by the People, yet Pelosi, Obama, and Reid pushed it through anyway "so we could see what is in it." Obama claims his re-election means the people want higher taxes and more spending, though neither were on the ballot, and the people elected a House of Representatives that ran against those things.
And there is a reason that the Founders made clear in the 9th Amendment that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and in the 10th, that, "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution clearly delineates the authorities of the THREE (not four) branches of government. Legislative authority, as well as the power of the purse, and taxation lies with Congress. The authority to preside over that government lies with the Executive. The President is given the responsibility of running the day to day business of the government, NOT to rule the day to day lives of the People. The power to judge disputes, of law or property, lies with the judiciary. It clearly states that domestic law is the purview of State governments, while interstate and external policy belongs to the Federal Government.
The erosion of Constitutional principles began nearly as soon as the Founders established it. Alexander Hamilton himself accepted it only reluctantly, as better than the document it replaced. He worked the rest of his life to create a stronger central government, with fewer constraints. Then again, what he really wanted was a monarchy, and he knew it wasn't going to happen. It took centuries to get where we are, and would not be possible if the people themselves understood the Constitution, and the reasons for it.
The biggest blows to the Constitution came in the early 20th Century, a series of Amendments to it, which left the States with no representation in Congress, prohibited the sale of the government's primary source of funding, and established a more lucrative form of taxation. The 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified in 1913, and the 18th in 1933.
Few politicians would seriously challenge the Constitution for decades to come. Instead, Congress, with signature of the President, would use the power of the purse, to co-erce State legislation, such as helmet laws, seat belt laws, and speed limits. Because the Treasury could collect more taxes than it needed to run foreign policy, it held those dollars hostage from States that failed to bend to its will. The States became subservient to Washington, instead of the people.
But there has been no period in American History, when the rulers in Washington have so clearly flaunted their disregard for the Supreme Law of the Land. The POTUS is demanding that Congress give up the power of the purse, while he orders TSA to commit searches of persons, and the IRS to relieve the People of their earnings, if they don't buy things he wants them to buy. Congressmen of the 111th Congress have flat out stated that they will not be constrained by the Constitution, and the President has declared that "it is a flawed and outdated document." The Secretary of Defense (Panetta) flat out told Congress that the Executive Branch not only feels no compulsion to get approval for war (Syria, Libya), but that he doesn't even need (or plan) to tell them about it when he decides to bomb foreign TV stations or commit the Nation's aircraft to war.
And Bureacrats, which would demand imprisonment of a Soldier that followed orders to commit murder, face the situation to refuse un-Constitutional orders and be fired, to quit of their own accord and be replaced, or to carry out those orders, as judiciously as they can. These bureacrats, which can see the moral clarity when thinking of problems of enforcing the dictates for Hitler, Stalin, or Ahdiminijihadist, must justify to themselves that they are "only enforcing the law," as did Troops on all sides in World War II. Their very means of survival, their paycheck and livlihood, is at stake if they refuse. They are not forced to swear allegiance to "the party," but rather co-erced to pay the Union, which will be more than willing to hang out those that fail to pay, and eagerly protect those that follow their party decisions, no matter how lazy and inefficient.
I can honestly say I wouldn't want to be faced with the moral conundrum of a Federal bureacrat. I cannot honestly say how I would decide. I like to believe I'd choose to defend my Oath to the Constitution, but the threat of losing one's livlihood is one helluva threat. It's far easier to see the moral clarity from the outside looking in.
And as to the rulers in Washington, remember that Americans may one day awaken to the reality. I can only hope it will be in time to peaceably elect true Representatives, to turn back the abuses, because if Americans cannot be convinced by speech of their need to protect their Rights of Citizenship, no degree of violence will force them to re-establish those Rights, and those Rights themelves would be placed in jeopardy in a Civil War.
In the meantime, if my article of the promised land of low (State) taxes has you considering a move to the South, remember too that low taxes mean greater Liberty for your neighbor as well, and less government, that it means you can't tell your neighbor what to do on his property. It means the government won't enforce your desire to remove his old junk car, or stop him from target shooting (so long as those bullets are not ending up on your land), or make him buy something. So, if you want big government, go to San Francisco, or New York, or Chicago, where its illegal to own the means to defend yourself, and live on thee hope the Police come in time.
Down here, neighbors help each other and you're responsible for the repercussions of your own actions. Bring your snobbiness and you'll likely end up on your own, isolated and alone in a sea of Liberty. Be a good neighbor, and you'll find the meaning of "neighborly" and "Southern Hospitality." You might be awoken by a chainsaw too early in the morning, only to find the tree that fell across your driveway is just firewood, or kept up too late with legal fireworks on the night we celebrate Independence, but you're likely to be welcomed to the neighborhood with a warm Pecan Pie, and that feared phrase: "You ain't from around here, are ya?"
You may have a millionaire neighbor that wears bib overalls, an unkempt beard, and has a trailer home, but don't judge his intellect by how carefully (and slowly) he chooses his words, or how much grease is on his clothes from working on his own car. Don't judge his education by a lack of ten dollar words. You may one day appreciate his hard-working, traditional values of independence when your own car won't start. Yeah, we can get our own cars on the road down here. We don't have to wait 45 minutes for the tow truck to change the tire.
Archeologists today are regularly finding evidence of technologies of the ancient world that match or exceed those of today. Wonders remain that have not yet been explained by today's crop of scientists, archeologists, and historians. Legends of old are being proven to be less myth and more history, that civilizations of 2,000 and 4,000 years ago weren't as primitive as modern man often thinks, that battles of old did occur, along with the fact that Heroes that fought them did exist.
Many of these new discoveries of old lack the details to understand the mechanics. And often, things that can't be explained are chalked up as extra-terrestrial interference. Yet, we know that even modern technological results can be achieved by various means. Flight today can be achieved by propeller, rotary, blimps, or glider aircraft. Physics may allow for other means of flight as yet undiscovered, or even lost in history.
The motivations and machinations of modern man are not much changed from those of ancient man. Why did Egyptians and Mayans strive to build bigger and better pyramids? Why do modern Asians and Americans strive to produce ever taller buildings and longer bridges? To put their mark on the world around them. To be the -est; the biggest, the brightest, the tallest, even if only for a moment in time.
We know that science and education has been learned and lost. We know for example that the current cycle of learning produced indoor plumbing in the 16th and 18th Centuries, but that the Romans also had it in 1st Century, and the Minoans had hot and cold running water, as well as sewage systems in 1700 BC. We know therefore that simple plumbing has been learned and lost at least twice in Western Civilization alone. Where would we be today if the technology of the Romans had not been lost to the invasions of the Muslim Caliphate in the 7th Century, had we not been plunged into the Dark Ages by "mini-Ice Age" and invading marauders?
Today's science and knowledge is expanding and advancing at paces unknown in human history, in large part due to concentrations and sharing of the same, in places like libraries and universities. In times past, there were parallels, and others there were perpendiculars, where inventors more closely horded their knowledge, but no man can maintain the whole world's body of knowledge in his own brain.
Today, archeologists are finding evidence that ancient man moved or formed buildings of stones greater than modern man can move or make, that ancient man may have understood aerodynamics and flight to some extent, that he knew astronomy as well as 21st Century scientists. The Mayan calendar, for example, takes into account astronomical events that occur only once in 5000 years.
We even know that we already losing the ability to read from technologies that were new in the 1980's, such as the 5 1/4" floppy disks and VHS tapes. We don't know how soon the internet or USB ports will be lost to history, or that the CD will go the way of the 8 track tape. How would future archeologists and scientists interpret the discovery of a collection of CD's, particularly if electricity and CD players were to be lost technologies, and unrediscovered?
Instead of admitting the most likely possibility, that invading Armies destroyed the records of how the feats of ancient man were accomplished, as were the technologies of the Romans and Greeks, many look to the stars, to say that aliens helped, or ordered the construction.
That is not to say that life does not exist in other places of the universe. It most likely does, and while some of the religious world might call that blasphemy, the Bible and other texts don't claim that life exists only on this world. In fact Genesis refers to many things it does not say were created or done. It does not tell us how Cain's wife came to be for example. It elaborates only of generations of a single son, for the most part, through Noah, yet tells of many wives and cities of people. A lack of detail in the Bible does not imply that anything did not exist or did not occur. A lack of understanding of how something occurs in the modern world does not mean that there isn't an underlying law of physics.
And in the possibility of extraterrestrial life, both scientists and clerics can be blinded by what they know. Scientists look for oxygen breathing, water drinking, carbon based life forms, instead of considering that life elsewhere might breath carbon dioxide (or some other gas) and drink oil (or not at all). Some clerics look to their texts and see that it only mentions life on Earth, and hence must exclude other worlds. What we do not know we don't know can be as limiting as the things we know we can't yet explain.
Ancient Incan miniature sculptures in gold present us with what could be a model of an airplane. Ancient Greek texts tell us of a chariot that flew inside a building for the entertainment of visitors. Biblical and other texts of the Middle East speak of other means of flight. And let us not forget the "Flight of Icarius" and the drawings of Michelangelo, which predate modern flight by hundreds or thousands of years. Not only is it possible that ancient man figured out the principles of lift, it is also possible that he knew other means of defying gravity. It is not impossible that Egyptians studied the flight of birds and built their own versions of planes, or it could be they simply carved out a miniature sculpture of what they saw in flight.
And while Science at one time insisted on the "fact" that the Earth was flat and the Universe revolved around it, modern Scientists may be insisting, and likely are, that "facts" and theories today are just as wrong. Since the first child ask his father, "Why is the sky blue?" man has attempted to speak in absolutes of knowledge he may or may not have. And just as many of those fathers gave an absolute reason of utter nonsense, so too do some today tell tales of absolutes they do not know, some of which may even make sense. Too often humans do not wish to admit to those that believe them smart, that they don't have an answer.
Science is not sacrireligious, nor does modernly known laws of science preclude intervention of a Supreme Being; the existence of God. While we have Theories of how the Universe and Life on Earth was formed, even if someday they are proven, it does not mean that it wasn't the machinations of a Supreme Being. Confined to Earth, man and Scientists cannot prove that anything does not exist. While we have only recently learned to send probes to other rocks in the Solar System, as far as we currently know, we've only sent life to the moon.
We haven't even planted a seed on Mars, or figured out how to get a camera to the next Solar System in our lifetimes. And we have only theories of what is actually in the center of the Earth or below the Marianna Trench. We know that magnetism works, and have harnessed its energies in many ways, but we do not know necessarily how or why, or all of its uses.
In every theory of the Universe, something was always there, timeless. While timeless is a concept we cannot fathom, Scientists and Clerics alike admit there must be something immune from time, from the cycle of life and death. Proponents of the Big Bang Theory believe the Universe was once compressed and exploded, while Christians believe it was God that caused the creation of Heaven (space) and Earth. While atheists point to the laws of physics as precluding the notion that God exists, there is nothing to say that God didn't author those laws as Congress authors the tax code.
Even today, technologies are being lost as other technologies are being invented. When I grew up, my father and I often worked on the cars we owned, adjusting the timing, changing spark plugs & alternators, occasionally even attempting to rebuild carburetors and transmissions. He wasn't a mechanic nor am I. Then, paying someone else to change an air filter or the oil was unheard of, except for "the rich" who also paid others to clean their house and pool. Today, many couldn't even find the oil plug bolt on their car, and don't consider that they could change the oil in less time than it takes to drive to the shop to have someone else do it.
Today, people will wait hours on the side of the road, waiting for someone else to come and to take off 5 lug nuts, and change their flat tire, while others can change 4 tires in 14 seconds. Ask a modern carpenter to build a shed without electricity, and you'll get an interesting look of puzzlement, but only a hundred years ago, there was no other way. He knows it can be done, but he likely has no idea of how to turn trees into a house. It doesn't necessarily take a laser to create precise structures and a modern crane is not the only way to lift a multi-ton stone. Even in the last few hundred years, a single man of small stature was able to build a multi-ton structure, without cranes, by himself. The means by which he built the structures, in Florida, remain unknown and bewildering to modern engineers.
What we think we know can be as limiting as what we don't know we don't know. We know that diamond can cut just about anything, but it is not the only thing that can cut rock, and just because we don't know how the Mayans built such precisely cut stone structures high in the mountains doesn't mean there's not a better way to cut and move rock than we know today. And just because we no longer have that technology doesn't mean that only aliens could have done so. In the 11th Century, hot water wasn't available to a king in his castle, though it was 28 centuries earlier.
Just because light travels faster than anything I know, does not mean there isn't something faster. Just because it is accepted that diamond is the hardest substance on Earth, doesn't mean there isn't something harder, or more brilliant. Just because we haven't found a reason to disprove the Theories of the Big Bang, or Evolution, does not mean they are fact. Just because modern flight was invented by the Wright Brothers does not mean the Mayans had not figured out the same or better ways thousands of years ago.
Just because we don't understand how the Egyptians or the Mayans came to the knowledge they had, or the technology to build the things they did, does not mean they had extraterrestrial help. They could have easily discovered the same laws of physics and aerodynamics, as have modern scientists, just as the English invented modern plumbing, despite the Roman systems of plumbing being lost to Invasion of the Caliphate. It's possible and even likely that they knew other sciences and had other technologies that we haven't re-discovered. It's possible that those technologies are even simpler than today's, like the abacus to the calculator, like magnetism to aerodynamic flight.
Just because we cannot explain something, does not mean it's unexplainable.
Still, in a world where Scientists note that the Earth has gone through numerous cycles of worldwide tropical environments and Ice Ages, that they can only theorize about causes, it is surprising that they alternately predict a man-made Ice Age (1970's) and Global Warming (1990's) based on so little empirical data (100 to 200 years), while simultaneously ignoring their own research of a 1000 year warming since the last "mini-Ice Age."
There is nothing wrong with developing theories in attempt to explain and discover the Truth, or in the belief in Aliens, God, or Atheism, but there is something profoundly wrong with teaching that theory as Fact, as we should have learned from the history of Science in proclaiming the Earth as Flat. There are things which can be believed only by Faith, including many tenets of Science.
As we approach the Christmas Holidays, the most dogmatic of Atheists seem ever more intent in preaching a religion of no God, though they cannot disprove God, and simultaneously must confess that something (matter) has eternally existed. The human need to convert others to one's own belief propel them to attempt to convert others to "non-belief," while some hubristically believe that only supreme beings of other planets could have helped ancient man in his feats, while others believe themselves the supreme beings of the Universe. While Science proves ever vastness of the Universe or Multiverse, and ever more microscopic elements, few seem to consider that the Universe itself may be a part of a being greater than our own comprehension, as incomprehensible to us, as we would be to a living being on a photon.
Just as man is the world upon which microorganisms live, and can transport knowing or unknowingly across vast distances in its lifetimes, which would take the equivalent of billions of lightyears to us, for the species to move, so too might we be the microorganisms as yet undiscovered by beings so vast that a solar system is an atom.
There are some things we each believe to be true, but we cannot prove as fact. Every belief you hold is probably contradicted by the belief of someone else, who holds its truth to be just as indisputable. Hence, it is important that we be honest with ourselves in what is fact, and what is belief, what is proven, and what must be accepted on Faith.
While Syria slaughters its own people and Cairo burns yet again, idealism reveals again, that war is to be left in the dustbins of history. Similar predictions were made in 1909, just 4 years before the first World War, and in the 1930's by Neville Chamberlain, on the eve of the Second World War. In the 90's, Clinton slashed our military with the idealism that the world would be a safer place. It ignored the rising attacks by Islamist Terrorists and declarations of war by al-Qaeda, in hopes it would just go away. It claimed terrorism was a law enforcement problem, and should be tried in court, rather than prosecuted by militaries.
Zero Ponsdorf of This Ain't Hell points out the latest prediction of the impending future world of peace. And some blame the realism of Veterans, of the fact that Sovereign Nations maintain standing Armies for self-defense, that wars continue. Evidently, some believe that if Nations will just give up the means to defend themselves, then dictatorships will stop trying to take over their land and people.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Communist Central Party of China has selected their new set of leaders, without ANY input from their Chinese subjects and are publishing new passports with maps of claiming the territory of several Pacific Nations, from the Philipines, to India, to Korea, to Japan, and of course Taiwan.
Communist China has been using the profits of the lead coated toys it sells to our kids, to buy modern battleships, aircraft carriers, and troop transports. It has taken over from the Soviets in stealing our technology, for such things as the Stealth Fighter which the Obama Administration decided was unneeded for our own military. It has doubled its military spending in the last decade, and continues to increase it by double digits. And now, it is making claims on the islands of the Pacifics in a manner reminiscent of 1930's Japan. The one thing that has contained China's military threat for decades is being erased: its inability to project the power of its 4.5 Million man Military.
As the world begins to see the results of Islamism unleashed in the wake of Obama's retreat from the Middle East, it is becoming more apparent that we have repeated 1978 Iran, rather than 1989 Eastern Europe. Veterans that lived through those days predicted it. The people of the effected countries feared it.
Tunisians ran for the boats before the Islamists could loot & burn their homes. The Italians had to beg the European Union for help in dealing with the refugees as thousands flocked to their Island. Women in particular feared as the Islamists returned from exile. A formerly stable country, with remarkable freedoms, considering its geographical position, and its nervous ethnic and religious divides, de-stabilized rapidly, opening the door for Islamism to seize power.
Egyptians, enamored with the idea of a greater say in their own politics flocked to the square, and got what they thought they wanted, unleashing the Islamists Mubarrak had held in check for decades in the process. Obama had ordered Mubarrak to step aside and make way for the Muslim Brotherhood. He had begged the Military to force out Mubarrak, and then demanded they hold elections before non-Islamists could organize political parties.
Today, Egyptians have learned the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi, is declaring himself greater authority than even Mubarrak dared claim. They have learned that democracy can be as much an illusion in Egypt, as it is in Islamist Iran.
Islamist terrorists are pushing the war front South in Africa, into Mali, Nigeria, and Kenya, while civil wars continue to be as prolific today on continent, as they ever were, along with corruption, poverty, disease, and famine. Tyrants, like Islamist al-Bashir of Sudan, care less what stripe of Ideology they "represent" than that they maintain tyrannical control. And the 2 decade alliance of Islamist Iran and Sudan, finally bore fruit in 2012 Egypt, a country they had given up on in the 2000's.
And let us not forget Syria, where unrest of reasonable people has been seized upon by the jackals of Islamism, as they fight for the future dictatorial rights of tyranny. Average, freedom loving Syrians are now being crushed in the middle as Iranian backed Islamists, including Iran's Quds Force and Hezbollah, battle Hamas backed al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists. The violence has spilled into Turkey, Lebanon, and Israel.
In Pakistan, Taliban terrorists continue to slaughter Shi'a celebrating the assassination of a 7th Century descendant of Mohammad, as other Islamists do the same in Baghdad and Iraq.
Europe is not immune, and not just on the fringes of the Empire. While Turkey becomes more Islamist, Greece has burned at the behest of Communists and Socialists, who first created a debt crisis, and now violently protest measures to correct the problems. The birthplace of city-states, citizenship, and democracy is rocked and fire-bombed into the mayhem of socialism on the fringes of the Islamist Caliphate its descendents in Turkey helped create.
Spain continues to experience the pains of 25%+ unemployment, despite voting out the Socialist that turned their record economy into shambles in just a few years. Italy is having similar problems but not to the same extent. The good news for Spain is that the economy is so bad that even the Islamist terrorists are considering giving up. Parallels in Spain and Italy are erily reminiscent of pre-Fascist days of the early 1930's Europe, years before World War II.
In America, the words "Military Industrial Complex" continue to be spoken derisively, in an economy closer to the 1930's depression, than at any time since Jimmy Carter. Like FDR, the Obama Administration has attempted domestic spending programs with similar failures. The National Debt to Gross Domestic Production ratio exceeds any since FDR's World War II. Our entire Nation's annual production is now worth less than what our Government owes. But lost in the lessons of history is that FDR's attempts at spending the US out of depression failed. Lost in the lessons is that it was Defense Spending that lifted us out of Great Depression.
In the 1930's, as FDR saw the threat of a rising Nationalist Socialist dictator in Adolf Hitler and an Imperialist Emperor heading his own religion in Japan, he ramped up production of military equipment, selling it to Britain & the Soviets, and backfilling Chinese and Burmese fighting the Japanese.
And all of the treaties and the precursor to the United Nations, the League of Nations, could not ensure their prediction that World War I had been the war to end all wars. The treaties had limited the production of the machines of war, particularly that of Japan, Germany, America, France, and Britain. And while the Allies enjoyed the elimination of expenditures on military equipment, Japan and Germany enjoyed the economic benefits of a robust and aggressive weapons business. They invested in the technologies to be at the forefront of warfare, and ignored those de-moralizing treaties that ended the war to end all wars.
By the late 1930's, the dictators of Germany, Japan, & Italy had the Armies they needed to sweep across their neighbors, who had believed that if they just didn't build defenses, they wouldn't have wars. In less than 6 years, between 1939 and 1945, 4% of the population of the effected Nations, 62 Million to 78 Million, including up to 55 Million civilians and 25 Million soldiers had been killed, just 30 years after "the war to end all wars," and the new era of peace.
Today's threats include an Imperialist minded Communist China, parallel to the 1930's Japan, and Islamist Iran, expanding its influence in the Middle East and South Asia, which uses the same anti-Semetic propaganda and symbolism as did Germany's National Socialist's Goebels & Goehring. Like Hitler's Germany, there is the appearance of elections, so long as you vote for Ayatollah's Islamists. And the Aryans oppressed under Iran's Ayatollah & Ahdiminijad have as little say in their fate as did the Aryans oppressed under Germany's Hitler & Goebels.
Today's military defenses see increases in Russia rather than Germany, while Europe, including Britain, increasingly cut their own. The policies of appeasement espoused by Neville Chamberlain for Hitler are in full force in modern Europe to Islamists, Socialists, & Communists.
While Russia's Putin is more akin to the National Socialism of Hitler than his historical experience in Communism's KGB, he is re-building the grip on power Stalin and Lenin executed to create the largest empire of the 20th Century. To quote Hillary, "one would have to be willfully ignorant" to not see the friendly relations between Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, & Syria.
For the prophets of peace, the lessons of history should be ignored in the hopes that the human race will "evolve" beyond the base animal instincts, which continue to drive 99.5% of all the human animal does. Idealists continue to hope that if individuals stop attaining the means to defend themselves, and Nations stop attaining the means to defend their borders and citizens, the predators: criminals, terrorists, and tyrants, will stop swooping down on the weak, and taking what they want.
Recent conversations with various people have reminded and re-inforced to me just how out of touch so many have become with the Foundations of the American Liberty, and the very principles of democracy and governance. Publicly and privately, I have re-iterated that if those that love the Constitution cannot convince the American People of its value, with words, no degree of rebellion will do so.
These conversations have occurred with people of various ages from tweens to 90 year olds, from self-described Communists to Constitutionalists, from those who espouse an even greater expansion of government power and taxation, to those who believe the government has a conspiracy behind every event in the news. It will never cease to amaze me that some will believe that all corporations are evil, and "the people" would be better served with complete government control, a monopoly, of the same services, rather than the personal choice between various companies that must compete for their purchases.
Nor will my astonishment cease that so many can not see the cause and effect of American jobs being moved to China because they, individually, along with so many others like them continue to purchase cheap Chinese products, rather than buying the few things still Made in America. They justify their puchase of the cheap Chinese trinkets, with their claim that they can't afford and should not pay for quality products made by their neighbors. Then they turn around and complain that "corporations" are shipping jobs overseas. They want higher wages, but fail to recognize that they are unwilling to pay for the higher wages of their neighbors, preferring the cheap prices of goods made by asian kids and Chinese political prisoners.
Some have even suggested to me, that there is no "American culture," that it has been subsumed by consumerism, and that we as a people have become superficial. In some respects, I am forced to admit their point, even as I observe some of the culture of the South sapped by the same forces, while many old traditions of the South are claimed by its opponents for consumeristic or altruistic reasons, and very different ideologies.
As a kid, my father often took us to the Farmer's Market, where we bought bushels, literally, of fresh produce, from farmers he personally knew, at prices others paid for a few cans of processed food. My mother would slave over the stove for days, thereafter, with all of us helping, canning and freezing the food we'd eat for the next year. It was decades before I realized a pressure cooker could be used for "regular cooking." We had three, and a process for streamlining the process. Today, people go to the "Farmer's Market," because it's popular to buy "organic" foods, as if the stuff you buy in the supermarket is non-organic matter. They pay inflated prices.
We almost always had our own garden as well, which produced the fresh food we put on our table, as well as contributed to the canning process. It wasn't a trendy thing to do. It was the economical and smart thing to do. It was the Southern way. And after years in the military, I remember the surprise of the taste of a garden grown tomato, versus the mass produced stuff I had been eating in the mess hall for years.
Recycling meant re-using and repairing things that today would otherwise be thrown away. New cars were a rarity, and we fixed our own cars, not to mention changed our own oil.
America does have a distinct culture, even if has been washed over by a culture of consumerism and multiculturlism. America's culture is one of Freedom, of Liberty, of personal Independence & Responsibility. It is one of doing what's necessary, and all that one can for themselves, before asking for a handout. It is a culture of helping your neighbor when he needs help, but not one of being a subject to the whims and largesse of the government, even in a crisis.
My entire life I've heard of the "responsibility" to vote and I would counter that it is a "Right" to vote, but the responsibility is to educate yourself on what and who you are voting for, or against. I believe we've gotten into the mess we have because too many voters have no idea what the politicians they put in office are doing. Too many vote solely based on the letter behind the name. Some I have encountered are still voting based on which party did what to cause the Great Depression, and which they perceive presided over its recovery. Others vote based on propaganda over things that cannot be changed by the people they are voting for. There is ZERO chance Roe v. Wade will be overturned. ZERO. There is no way a Constitutional Amendment would be passed to ban abortions, and that is the ONLY way that it could be changed.
Our Founders created an alliance of States, formed for a Common Defense. They purposely and with reason made domestic governance a State responsibility and authority, banning the Federal Government from interfering in State and Local matters. They immediately passed the Bill of Rights, protecting the People from the Government, based on the inalienable Rights granted every Individual, by "the Creator" as they had previously stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Today, we have widespread support for the suppression of Free Speech, when it supports that with which we disagree. If it's labeled "hate speech," or argues against the messianic nature of the Politician in Chief, it "should be banned." We have widespread support for punishing corporations that build their products overseas, because Americans won't pay for the inflated union wages of stuff made here.
It is time for us, as a Nation, to revisit how the American Culture created the Foundation of Freedom, why the Founders created a system in which the greatest domestic governence was held to the lowest levels, and how the Right to Vote carries with it a Responsibility to know who and what you are voting for and against.
It is that Liberty and Freedom, which created not only the Greatest Country on Earth, but also the Economic and Military Superpower we became. It allowed penniless orphans to be become the richest men in the world, and allowed the richest heirs to become paupers.
Democracy just means you get a vote in something. It doesn't in and of itself guarantee you a single Right. One needs only look at 2009 Iran, or 2012 Russia to see that a vote can have as little positive effect as urinating into the wind. When the Rights of the People to speak against a government are suppressed, and the choices of politicians limited to those the powermongers at the top choose to allow you to pick, one is not a citizen, but rather a subject of that regime. Do you think they want to live under the oppressive yoke of their tyrants? NO, but they have no means (arms) to throw off their chains of bondage.
If the American People wish to maintain their Liberties, and their Rights, and the capability to choose, then they must educate themselves on the people and ideologies of those they put in office, and not just support a letter behind a name.
Many have expressed concern that the current Presidential campaign has been devoid of National Security/Foreign Policy issues, myself included. I've said very little about Romney, because he has previously said very little about National Defense. I've picked up a few encouraging snippets in the last few weeks, but finally he has added some substance, on the topic Obama considers his strong suit.
"Hope is not a strategy." Romney is not the first I've heard say that. My old team Sergeant said it on a regular basis, when he felt complacency was setting in, when he thought someone wasn't planning or preparing properly, when someone forgot to plan. He was right "Hope is NOT a strategy." You can't just hope the right supplies and equipment will be available when you need it, where you need it, or that the other units involved are on the same sheet of music. You have to have a plan and you have to have thought out all the details of that plan, including what the enemy may do in response to your moves.
Romney is right. Hope is not a strategy. You have to have a plan for how to help your friends, and how to defeat your enemy.
Romney has pledged to roll back the Obama cuts to the Troops, to the restore the Navy from its current 1916 strengths. He has pledged to lead the Free World, not just hope others will do the right thing. He stated his recognition that a strong military prevents war, and that the world is more dangerous today than it was in 2008.
He noted that our Friends, our Allies, want American leadership, that the people of the Middle East, and the world want the Freedoms we have here. He pointed out that Libyans rejected the presence of the Islamist terrorists that had killed our diplomats, from remaining in their midst.
In the short 22 minutes of Romney's speech he points out many failures of the current Administration, such as Obama's silence when the Iranian people risked, and sacrificed their lives, in hopes that the world would help them overthrow their tyrannical regime, in 2009.
And when the civilian fatalities stood at half of the now 30,000, Obama sent Panetta & General Dempsey to Congress where his Secretary of Defense stated he would not get Congressional permission to go to war in Syria, but would wait on UN or NATO approval, despite the Constitution. And when the civilian fatalities stood at 1/3rd, the Administration said they didn't know who the rebels were, even after a year of combat. Now, al-Qaeda has made inroads, along with Hamas into the Syrian Civil War against Bashar Assad, his Russian and Communist Chinese allies, his Iranian allies, and their Hezbollah underlings. Lost in the crossfire are Syrians, who want Freedom, and democracy.
Though the Obama Administration denied the obvious for weeks, it has finally admitted that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was the work of Al-Qaeda, or at least its Islamist allies, and not just an overreaction to a two bit video no one had heard of or would have heard of, if it hadn't of been for the attack on our Embassy in Cairo. In fact, the attack on the Embassy in Cairo was advertised and supported by the Islamist Nour Party there, an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood ruling party, and the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi appears to have been led by a terrorist released prematurely from GITMO, and directed to occur by Al-Qaeda's leader, al-Zawahari.
And the attack came days before Obama announced he was releasing a 1/3rd of the remaining terrorists left at GITMO, and turning over the terrorists at Bagram, along with the prison to Afghanistan.
The Romney speech comes on the heels of Lara Logan's speech to the Better Governance Association in Chicago, where she told them that Islamism, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda have grown stronger in the last few years (of the Obama Administration). She knows. She's been there. She was in the middle of the events in Cairo, and has the lumps to prove it. She has interviewed General Allen, President Karzai, and members of the Taliban. She wore no scarf with Karzai or Allen, semi-covered her hair with Karzai's underlings, and had to scarf the camera as well with the Taliban.
We now know that there were many Islamists in that mob that day.
Obama has abandoned the Middle East, and Latin America, while ignoring Africa, while ordering the Military to focus instead on the vast ocean of the Pacific, with fewer Troops. His Administration pulled back on security forces in Libya, when his Ambassador there asked for more, and intelligence noted a pending attack. And the Marine response team that should have been on a moment's notice, was days away. His Ambassador, OUR Ambassador there was murdered as a result. Yes, it is the fault of the Islamist Terrorists that conducted the attacks, but it is the Administration which is to blame for ignoring the intelligence and the requests of the Ambassador on the ground.
Romney has struck a stark difference between his policies in Foreign Affairs and the current Administration's. Romney says he won't publish an enemy emboldening timeline of retreat, but will instead use the Diplomacy of Strength. He won't abandon allies, or back down from enemies, but instead ensure that allies and enemies alike will know we mean what we say, and have the means to back it up, and the will to do so.
Romney has said he won't allow America to be tossed about on the waves of world events, but will lead from the front, and shape those events.
I'm not necessarily excited about Romney but I am impressed with his speech. And I'm glad he has finally stated some positions on National Security and Foreign Policy. I will hold him to those words if he wins, just as I have pointed out that Obama's were empty when he said "Afghanistan would be his top priority," in the 2008 campaign.
It is time to turn the tide back in the favor of Freedom, and to push the rise of Islamism back on its heels.
One year ago on this day, I stood on the New York Presbyterian Hospital
deck looking down at the East River. In the weeks prior to the 10th
anniversary of that terrible day when evil struck at the heart of
America, I had listened to Jack Delaney - who was Director of Emergency
Services at New York Presbyterian Hospital on 9/11 - as he shared his
experiences of that day and the aftermath. If you missed it the first
time, go here
and read his first-hand account. Now looking down at the river I felt
so small as I watched the boat traffic gently riding the waves on this
Sunday morning. I thought back to the Tuesday morning ten years
earlier; one of America's darkest days, but also a day where the heart
of America shone so brightly.
As I stood quietly watching the ebb and flow of this river, I was so
incredibly humbled. I had come to this place on this day at the
invitation of some very special Americans. I had come to remember and
honour. A few years earlier I had been privileged to interview the mom
and dad of Keith Fairben, a Paramedic who died on 9/11, along with his
partner Mario Santoro, as they were focused on saving others' lives.
First Diane, Keith's mom, and then Ken,
Keith's dad, had honoured me by sharing their hearts, the heart of
their son with me, and allowing me to tell the world the story of his
life.
On March 29th, 1973, the last US Troops left Viet Nam, officially ending a war that was not considered a war. The official dates of the war to this day are not the same as the dates that the war was fought. The war began under Dwight Eisenhower and expanded under JFK.
The perception, falsely, remains that Our Troops lost. They did not. The politicians gave up, in the face of protests, initiated by our Cold War enemy. The politicians had tried to play General, hamstrung Our Troops, and failed to take the fight to the enemy for years before that.
The iconic images of the end of the war were taken 2 years later, on March 30th, 1975, when the US Embassy in Saigon was evacuated, as Saigon fell to the Communist North. Some, many, will say that because we had US Marines at the Embassy, the war continued. Every Embassy has Marines. Their role is to protect the US soil of the Embassy, and more practically, particularly in situations like this, the US Citizens that work in the Embassy. Our Marines, on March 30th, 1975 performed valiantly, saving as many lives as humanly and physically possible, but it was the South Vietnamese government, not the US Military that fell that day.
Our Troops fought Valorously and Honorably in Viet Nam. They did what was asked of them, and won the battles they fought. Our Nation still owes the Veterans of Viet Nam, primarily because Our Citizens maligned them, ignored them, and abused them for so long.
On this day, and every day that a Viet Nam War Veteran reveals himself, please Welcome him Home, and thank him for doing a difficult, and thankless job.
In the video above, Sergeant Major Max Beilke, US Army is shown in CBS footage. He was the last to leave Viet Nam, and became one of the first to fall in the War On Terrorism. He was killed in the Pentagon, on 9/11/2001, still serving his Nation and fellow Veterans, as a civilian.
The news viewing public often hear the terms conservative, liberal, left, and right in regards to politics. Often "ultra-" is added to the beginning of the term, but are these terms indicative of their definitions, or a bastardization of the meanings? Do they have any modern value?
Traditionally speaking, a conservative was one who attempted to preserve the ways things were, while a liberal attempted to increase the liberties of the individual. In more recent history, the "leftists" attempted to move governments towards an international communist government while the "right wing" attempted to increase the strength of a National government, particularly relative to international standing. But is the political spectrum linear, or circular in nature? Does a 3rd world tyrant (Iran) with goals of an international Caliphate (empire) and forces aligned against the "counter-revolutionaries" really meet the definitions of "ultra-conservative," or is their brand of international socialism and dictatorship, just a new name on an old concept, with a slight twist?
Is the underlying priniciple of the United States that we hold elections, or that Individual Citizens have God-given rights that no man, or government can take away? If it is the former, do the "elections" held in Iran, in Egypt, and in Zimbabwe make those countries equally liberal? And if it is the latter, is it a conservative or liberal ideal to preserve the Rights of Individuals from the government that derives from it?
Some would have us believe that there can never be a reason to go to war. Others portend that only a war in which we have no National Interest is one in which we should engage. And still others say we should only fight when we have an unparalled National Interest.
Some say we should never be involved in a civil war. Some say we should only be involved in peacekeeping, particularly in civil wars. Some say we should only fight after we've been attacked. And some say that attack must occur on our own soil before we should fight. And then there's the age old philosophical question: If we knew then what we know now, should we have assassinated Hitler, preventing World War II, before he took power?
Is it really war, if we only send flying robots to bomb specific mud huts? Or if only the enemy calls it war and we pretend it's just a common crime? Is it war if the enemy has a flag, and are still only fighting to get a nation, or an empire?
The decision to go to war should not be made lightly. It is a decision to have humans kill other humans, but that is sometimes the only way to save the lives of more humans. The ability to win a war rests on one fundamental principal: breaking the enemy's will to fight. There are many ways that may be accomplished, but to win a war, one must cause the enemy to choose to end the fight.
... the lies, of the political doublespeak, of the apathy. I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Two days ago, another Administration political appointee, claimed that slashing the DoD Budget was "driven by strategy." Repeatedly, I hear the Administration claim that it is "supporting" Our Troops and Veterans by demanding that Congress to charge them for the health care resulting from their military service. The Secretary of Defense spends Department of Defense money to the tune of $42,000/week so he can fly across the country for weekends off, while telling Troops they don't need inflation based pay raises. The same politicians then blame the others for "sequestration" which they both implemented to force their own hands to deal with financial problems later, rather than sooner.
And then, on Memorial Day, the POTUS had the Tomb of the Unknown and Viet Nam War Memorial shut down from Veterans so he could give campaign speeches and have what amounts to campaign photos put on the White House GOVERNMENT web site. In years past, this POTUS simply skipped out of town to party in his "home town" of corruption, Chicago, and enjoy private concerts, instead of fulfilling his responsibilities on Memorial Day. So, when I saw he was going to fulfill his duties this year, I did not want to make it political. But Memorial Day is NOT a photo op. It should not involve politics. It is not an opportunity for a campaign speech. It is NOT a day for a guy that walked past a recruiting office and decided not to go in, to prove how great he is. It is a day for those that still walk this earth to solemnly express our gratitude to those that gave their lives defending it.
As did religious leaders of the Dark Ages, so too do politicians today pretend that only they can understand the sacred writings. Politicians today attempt to write in a manner incomprehensible to the Citizenry, but the Constitution was written in plain English.
In some places, the progressive movement to increase the ruling authority (and hence power of the ruling elites), invents phrases not found in the Constitution at all, such as "separation of church and state" to replace the 1st Amendment which prevents both the establishment of a state religion, as well as ANY measure to prevent the free exercise of religion, including prayer in public places.
It has relied on emotion, rather than logic, to overcome a basic tenet of the Founding Fathers' beliefs: that the individual Citizen should be given the greatest degree of Freedom to achieve or fail in his own endeavors, without the force of interference of others, including that of the government they have established.
The "justification" of policies and platforms by the loyalists of parties has taken on some rather curious questions and arguments in recent years.
A Viet Nam Veteran stated that as Veterans we have a continued responsibility to "follow" the dictates of the President, though he simultaneously suggested his displeasure with the previous office holder. When I looked at his wider sentiments, it was clear he was a die-hard loyalist of the DNC. The Founding Fathers did not trust those who wanted to run Nations, and made sure that Americans were not obligated to swear fealty to a ruler, but rather maintained the Rights of Citizens.
This sentiment strikes to the heart of the matter of what is wrong with the widespread view of the government today. Today's discussions of the presidency is more akin to that of rulers than Constitutional construction. Article II of the US Constitution establishes the office of President, as the person entrusted with running the day to day business of the government, not as a ruler of the Citizens of the Nation. He is to preside over government, not dictate to the Citizenry. It authorizes him to do only those things authorized by the Constitution, and the Congress, which is also limited by the Constitution.
Another person asked me if I "loved my country?" Out of context, the answer is easy, but the context was why I was unyielding to the decree of the politician in office declaring that Military Retirees should pay the Treasury for their Retirement, and why I opposed his efforts to overstep the limitations of the Constitution. It forced me to consider her definition of "country." It seemed the definition was the government, the people who reside within the borders, or the economic successes created within it. The implication of the question was that I should bow to the usurpation of the Constitution, because a past Congress and a current President had deemed it in their best interests.
This weekend, the "brave & bold" politicians of the Administration are giving their interviews of the fear they felt watching the Seals destroy the most wanted man in the world. They have rolled out a video of Bill Clinton suggesting Mitt Romney would not have had the balls to let the Seals do what Seals do. Leon Panetta took reporters on a magic plane ride where he told them of his daring do and how he had to ask what happens next on the mission he purportedly planned and ran, in the middle of it. Obama, Hillary, Panetta, & Biden have expressed their heroism and fears while watching Seals do what they personally never did, could, or would.
"Boldly risking his own political hide and rushing to the video screen to watch others risk their lives on the other side of the world, the ruler of the Western World, Obama, suffered neck strain, and observed the gasps of his political colleagues while overcome with the smell of Biden and Hillary, for nearly an hour, before declaring himself, the only man on Earth bold enough to control the remote. As the mission was initiated, he made jokes to reporters, belying his fears that the mission wouldn't fall on an historic date. As the enemy sold the classified equipment left behind, he confidently walked to the podium, certain watching that screen would get him re-elected." Proposed citation for the Adminstrators of the Republic.
Why do these politicians believe that they acted heroically by watching a video screen of someone else put their lives on the line on the other side of the world? Because it was "politically risky." Bill Clinton didn't have the balls to do it when he had the chance in the 1990's. The driving force of their fears was not, getting shot at, but getting voted out of power. Their concern was not for the men on the ground, but for their own power being lost. There was real concern that their paychecks were tied to the lives they had risked and the life they hoped they could take. This Ain't Hell addresses the political campaign of this, as well.
In the 1990's, we were told that if we closed Army bases, the Federal Government would save money. In 1994, Fort Ord, California, home of the 7th Infantry (Light) Division closed. For the next 25 years, the Army budget would continue to be drained in the costs of giving away the land. Those costs were scheduled to be completed in 2019. For the last 20 years, the Monterey area has salivated over the prospects of what to do with the gift from Uncle Sam, and fought over what to do with it.
For more than 15 years, they've had the ability to do something with it, and watched it rot.
Pictured: Fort Ord, 2012, main post, courtesy of a Veteran in the area.
"Some of the issues people are asking the plan review to address include: impacts of the economic downtown, targeted job creation, incentives for developing previously developed area, and FORA's own process for determining that projects are consistent with the reuse plan, an agency statement said." Monterey Herald, 4/16/2012, Larry Parsons
For these first few hours of April 12, 2012, the headlines have been: "Syria ceasefire truce is holding..."
From the BBC comes:
A ceasefire has come into force in Syria amid doubts expressed by Western countries about the government's willingness to stick to it.
Correspondents say the truce appears to be largely holding, with no reports of casualties or deaths so far.
However there were some reports of shelling and firing in the early hours and troops are still on the streets....(here)
There's a shocker - NOT! I am sure that news of such a truce will be a comfort to the thousands of Syrian families who have lost loved ones at the murderous hands of Assad loyalists:
Argentina has invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands in the south Atlantic.
The islands, off the coast of Argentina, have been a cause of friction between the two countries since Britain claimed them in 1833.
The Argentine flag is now flying over Government House in the Falkland Islands' capital, Port Stanley.
The head of the country's military junta, General Leopoldo Galtieri, has welcomed the "recovery" of "Las Malvinas" - the Argentine name for the Falklands.
General Galtieri said Argentina had been left with no option other than military action.
The invasion followed months of sabre-rattling and a build-up over the past few days of Argentine war ships off the Falkland Islands, home to about 1,800 people.
'Unprepared'
At 0600 on Friday Argentina began "Operation Rosario" when a unit of Argentine troops landed near Port Stanley.
The leader of the Argentine forces, Admiral Jorge Anaya, had contacted the Falklands' governor, Rex Hunt, to appeal for a peaceful surrender.
But the request was rejected and the 80 members of the Royal Marine regiment stationed on the island and 20 locals were mobilised.
It has become popular to say the US Constitution is" outdated." Politicians in Washington have stated more than once that they won't let it get in the way of their plans. And many people appeal to the American Voter's compassionate side to claim that "someone must do something," which is often synonymous to a campaign to increase the size of the Federal Government, and the amount of tax and debt it collects.
When I ask those that tell me that the Constitution is outdated, what exactly it is that doesn't apply to governance today, they usually say something about modern technology, but they can't point to anything in the Constitution, because they don't seem to have read it. The Constitution does not govern technology. It governs government. It lays out responsibilities and authority of various branches and levels of government. It spells out how it can be changed, if such a change is needed.
"The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to REPRESENTATIVES of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their SERVANTS can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled." George Washington
It is a living document, not because it can be changed at the whims or "interpretation" of a politician or judge, but because it affords a method of amendment, which has been used 27 times, the last of which took 201 years to be ratified. It is written in clear, precise, simple English. You don't need a law degree to understand it. At worst, you may need a dictionary from the 18th Century and perhaps a High School Diploma. Shall and Shall not are rarely used today, but they offer no room for loopholes.
The Constitution is first and foremost the blueprint for how the Federal Government is established. It creates the US House of Representatives and the US Senate and gives Congress the greatest list of powers; to declare war, to raise Armies, to maintain a Navy, to write laws, to raise revenue, and to spend that money. It establishes the Executive Branch, which is to preside over the government and do the day to day business of the Nation, but limits the authority of the President to that which the Representatives of the People authorize. It establishes the Judiciary, whose responsibility is rule accordingly to the law & the Constitution, not empathy or politics, in matters of dispute.
To simplify the 4 original pages of the US Constitution into an ideology of governance, it says that the Federal Government has responsibility for external affairs, and for affairs between the States, while the States have responsibility for governance within their borders. It sets up various mechanisms to prevent the Federal Government from punishing or rewarding regions or states, and to maintain a level playing field.
The Bill of Rights was written and ratified almost immediately. It re-iterates the principles of the Declaration of Independence and primacy of State Governments in the governance of the People. The Bill of Rights were necessary because although the Founders had previously stated the Rights of the People to Freedom, as a Right given by God, not man, the Founders knew that if these Rights weren't spelled out and guaranteed, some politician wanting total power would usurp the God Given Rights of the Individual.
Again, I ask, What were they thinking? Did they not know that the People would want Education and Health Care? Why didn't they give such authority to the Congress? Why did they make States, not Congress & the President, the governors of Americans? Why did they restrict the Federal Authority to external affairs?
The War in Libya presented America with a political dance that had the Administration first telling us that it just wasn't possible to do anything to stop Qaddaffi from slaughtering protestors in the streets and then using a UN Resolution authorizing a "No-Fly Zone" to launch missiles at Television Stations because they were reporting news in support of a Sovereign government it didn't like. We launched cruise missiles. We sent in Military Aircraft. We conducted warfare in Libya. At no time, did the Obama Administration ask the US Congress for authorization to go to War.
For a year, the Obama Administration has said it just isn't possible to do anything to protect the people of Syria from the Ba'athist Regime and ally of Islamist Iran of Bashir Assad, outside of asking others to say it's a bad thing to do. The Administration now appears to be in the opening salvo of preparing for war in Syria and Congress has some questions, namely: Will the current Administration get Authorization for War from Congress, as required by the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, which bows to no treaty, no international body, and no legislation passed by the entities it established, or not?
The question is not whether or not the Assad regime should be destroyed. It is a state sponsor of terrorism, second only to Iran. The question is, whether or not the Obama Administration respects the US Constitutional requirement that ONLY Congress may authorize the engagement of the Nation into War.
Outside the constraints of the Constitution, some might find Secretary Panetta's answer reasonable. This is what the Constitution states; ONLY Congress has authority to:
Elections are held in a majority of the world's countries, ranging from Venezuela & Iran to Germany, Russia, & Britain, the United States, but does that mean the people have a true input to the political process? Not necessarily. For the most part, the rest of the world has some type of parliamentary system as opposed to the US Congress, and the current government in the US is very different than the intent of the US Constitution.
In the American system, the people vote for a person, to represent their district, first as a representative of a party against the people selected by other voters for the other parties, and then between those running for that office of various parties and independents with no party affiliation. Rarely does the political party itself choose the politician that will run for that office, but on occasion it does occur, such as in the special election of the New York 26th District in 2011 which was held when the serving Representative resigned.
In the parliamentary system, the parties choose the politicians who will hold the seats, if the party wins it. In most parliamentary systems, voters cast a ballot for an individual and for a party. Whereas, in the United States, the politician getting the most votes, regardless of party or how many parties get how many other votes, gets the seat. In the parliamentary system, a party getting a minimum percentage (usually about 5%) of the vote is given seats in parliament, even if they lost in every district.
Parliaments have various degrees of authority in various systems, ranging from an advisory board to the executive to the selectors of the executive (Prime Minister). Some have a type of legislative authority and others don't.
On 12 July 2007, an Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment embarked on a mission to clear Al-Amin District of New Baghdad of Anti-Iraqi Forces, aka Mehdi Militia, aka Jayish al-Mahdi in order to provide freedom of maneuver to Coalition Forces. By 10:20 AM, Baghdad time, they had taken significant amounts of SAF (small arms fire) and RPG (rocket propelled grenade) fire, sporadically. Two AH-64D's were in the area and responded. What would happen next would inspire a movie, that would be nominated for an Oscar, but not win one.
"Now the war is over and in a lot of ways we're still fighting it. It is my accretion that despite what many leaders of this very government said publicly or otherwise, we won. We won through the blood sweat and tears of the troops on the ground, that refused to give up."Doc Bailey
To understand the situation, one must realize the Mehdi Militia was led by Moqtada al-Sadr, a relative of Bani al-Sadr, who had mentored the Ayatollah Khomeni. Moqtada's father had been assassinated, allowing the firebrand mulllah to take the reins of power his father had once held. Moqtada was at the time, for all intents and purposes, the dictator of a Million Man slum in North Baghdad controlled 100% by his Mehdi Militia.
Still, Clinton had decided that if Bush could cash in the "Peace Dividend" by cutting the size of the Military, he should cut it even more. After all, it was an era of peace, right? The Clinton Administration envisioned the Military being used in Peace-Keeping operations, not Wars. Operations like Somalia. It would be a kinder, gentler Military, under UN mandates. So, when the Ground Commander in Somalia said he needed Armored Personnel Carriers and C-130 Gunships, the Clinton Administration denied them on the basis that it would appear too aggressive.
When a successful operation in Mogadishu resulted in fatalities, and a hostage, Clinton couldn't retreat fast enough. The media played up the operation as a tactical defeat, though the Troops on the ground had fought bravely, against overwhelming odds, achieved all of their objectives, decimated the enemy, and left the battlefield on their own terms. The Rangers and Delta Operators had dealt Al-Qaeda its first tactical defeat, without even knowing Al-Qaeda was there. The Politicians in Washington turned it into a strategic defeat, adding to the lessons learned by Osama bin Laden, and his developing strategy.
After the demonstrated resolve of the 80's against Qaddaffi, the state sponsors of terrorism, principally Iran and Libya, had pulled back the reins on the PLO, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. The Communist Terrorists of Europe had melted away. And the IRA had made peace with Britain. Terrorism was on the decline in the 90's.
America was again respected in the World. Americans again had Pride in the Nation. And America elected one of the "most qualified" Presidents to replace him, despite his lack of charisma. Bush Senior was a World War II fighter pilot, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, a Vice-President, and had a host of other things on his resume to demonstrate he could do the job. He soon reaped the rewards of Reagan's Arms Race. In his first year, the Iron Curtain crumbled, to the disbelief of the world. The Berlin Wall fell, the Velvet Revolution succeeded in Czechoslovakia, the Romanians hunted down and hung their brutal Communist Dictator, and the rhetoric of Perestroika and Glasnost overpowered the Soviet Union itself.
Those who had grown up in the Cold War, that remembered the brutal crackdowns of the past, waited with baited breath, expecting another, but the Soviet Army was demoralized, hungry, and tired of substituting anti-freeze for vodka. The floodgates to West Germany were opened by the Czechoslovakians and East Germans packed into their cardboard cars and took the Southern route into the West. The Autobahns of West Germany turned into traffic jams of the oppressed in cars that could barely do 60mph on roads where 120mph was the norm.
Soviet Troops were selling everything for nothing, as the Communists could no longer afford their paychecks. There's more than one report of a Soviet Soldier selling a T-72 for a case of vodka or two. The number one currency in Moscow became Marlboro cigarettes, followed by Levi Jeans, and the US Dollar. A new world of peace was being ushered in.
A recession is when a neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his. -- Quote by Ronald Reagan, Labor Day Address at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey (September 1, 1980)
Perhaps, little was expected of the Actor-President in 1980, and little was made of his experience in governing California. He became known as "The Great Communicator," because he knew how to talk directly to each American, through the TV camera. He got the reputation of being the "Cowboy" President, and demonstrated a will to collaborate with allies, or to go it alone, if NATO & Europe were unwilling to stand up for Freedom. The economy was still in dire straits in 1982, but the new Terrorist Tyranny of Iran had ensured that Our Diplomats were on their way home before Reagan could finish his inauguration ceremonies.
"Thomas Jefferson once said, "We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works." And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying." -- Quote by Ronald Reagan
American Morale needed a boost in the early 80's, but the bad times were not over. Islamist Iran didn't recognize National boundaries, but was founded on the concept of spreading its ideological and political model across the entire Muslim world. To this end, it fomented discord in its neighbor Iraq, and ended up in an 8 year war that pitted Ba'athist/Arab Nationalism against Islamist/Internationalist Islamism, and financially supported the terrorist Palestian Liberation Organization, until it could produce the alternative Islamist terrorist, Hezbollah.
Israel invaded Lebanon to uproot the PLO, while Islamist Iran used the results to create support for Islamist terrorists rather than the Secular PLO. Hezbollah gained momentum by bombing the US Embassy in Beirut, followed by bombings of the French, Brits, and finally the US Marine Barracks. Within 48 hours, Tip O'Neil's Congress had passed legislation forbidding the President from increasing actions against the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. With Iran having brought America to her knees in 1979 and their surrogate Hezbollah pushing American Peacekeepers out of Lebanon, Iran's Islamist dictator, the Ayatollah Khomeni was looking powerful, and America looked weak. Many world leaders and experts still expected the Islamist Iranian government to be a short-lived phase though. Culturally and Historically, the Iranian people were not prone to such abuses.
I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. -- Quote by Ronald Reagan during the Second Presidential Debate against Walter Mondale (October 21, 1984)
America needed a victory and Grenada proved to be one. Few had heard of the Island Nation in the Caribbean before President Reagan announced the rescue operation to save US Medical students from the Communist Government. The Cuban troops and Grenadian Communist military were defeated nearly before the President announced that we had gone in. For the first time since World War II, the American Military had a clear cut Victory, not a stalemate which returned to pre-war division as was Korea, not a politically induced defeat, despite battlefield Victories as was Viet Nam.
And it was not the only Victory. The Space Shuttle lifted off, with such great success that the Soviet Union copied the plans and built their own.
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. -- Quote by Ronald Reagan during Remarks at the Annual Convention of Concerned Women for America held at the Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Virginia (September 25, 1987)
The "Cowboy" President had instilled a little Pride in America, and was determined to rebuild the Military to a level that it could win if the Soviets ever attacked. And it looked as possible as ever that the Cold War could turn hot. Despite Peacenik protests outside the White House calling for a unilateral disarming of US Nuclear Weapons, Reagan increased research, development, and fielding of more accurate and more effective weapons, catching up and surpassing Soviet capabilities. He put an end to reliance on "Mutually Assured Destruction" as the only deterrent to a Nuclear War, with the development of SDI, or "Star Wars" as it was then known, which was designed to shoot down inbound Soviet Nukes, before they hit American cities.
Reagan increased funding for Military Equipment and Training. The Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force were finally getting Modern Equipment and the opportunity to perfect their skills. The Soviets and Warsaw Pact had more troops and more equipment, but US Troop Morale was rebounding, and they were getting the means to defeat the Soviets from a greater distance.
Little is said today about the fight at our back door, but Reagan was committed to turning the tide. He trained and equipped the Salvadorans and Nicaraguans against the Communists. The peaceniks protested it, and propagandized against it. And to this day, they gather annually to protest the training of Latino Military Leaders at Fort Benning, Georgia. The Reagan Doctrine established that the Western Hemisphere would not tolerate Soviet or European or Asian interference in the affairs of Our Southern Neighbors. His policies quietly turned the tide in Latin America. Democracy was preserved in El Salvador and restored in Nicaragua and Grenada.
And it was in the 80's that Lech Walesa organized Polish Workers into an illegal union against the oppression of Polish Communism. The world held its breath, waiting for a crackdown reminiscent of the 1950's and 1960's by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Many thought Ronald Reagan's strong words of support for the Poles were just rhetoric, but the Soviets couldn't risk that he would follow through. Pope John Paul II was a Pole, and stood with his people. The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, had proven herself a resolute ally of the "Cowboy" President, and when the East German Communists began mobilizing up for what appeared to be a crackdown, so too did US Troops in West Germany.
Friend and foe alike, had to take Reagan at his word, because he had proven often that it wasn't just rhetoric, but that he had the backbone to follow through. And with an increasingly well-trained and equipped Military to back up his words, the Soviet Communists and Warsaw Pact weren't willing to push too far. While Communism continued to oppress its people, to send its political dissidents to the Gulags of Siberia, it stopped short of an invasion to prop up the Polish Communists.
The Soviet Dictators were going through their own crises as well. The Old Guard was dying off as fast as they could be named Premier and the Arms Race was eating up their meager economic resources. Reagan was spending 6.3% of GDP on the Military and the Soviets were able to buy more with less because every worker and every resource was owned by the government, but those workers had little incentive to do more than they must and were highly inefficient in doing it. It was costing the Soviets far more to maintain parity than it was costing the Americans. And it wasn't helping that their troops were increasingly demoralized with a lack of supplies and defeats in Afghanistan.
Soviet propaganda victories were turning against them. When they planned a massive river crossing, the substandard equipment failed, with entire tank crews drowning, trapped inside their steel coffins, as their buddies listened on the radio. While the KGB was cranking out fraudulent US Military documents, only the propagandists of Communism in the West claimed to believe they were real.
Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! -- Quote by Ronald Reagan, Speech at the Berlin Wall (June 12, 1987)
But Terrorism was a regular occurrence. Communist Terrorists in West Germany and Italy were very active, murdering diplomats and capitalists. And Qaddaffi of Libya was doing his best to prove himself a bigger player than the Ayatollah of Iran. While the Red Army Brigade was bombing the PX in Frankfurt, Qaddaffi managed to get a bomb into a Discotheque in Berlin. Qaddaffi fashioned himself a future emperor of Africa. He set up training camps for the Irish Republican Army in Libya, Liberian Rebel Charles Taylor, and whoever would oppose the West.
President Reagan ordered a retaliatory strike on Qaddaffi, despite French refusal to allow overflight. The strikes struck close to home for Qaddaffi, though later it would be shown that Qaddaffi's daughter had not been killed as he claimed. America was finally putting an end to turning the other cheek to terrorists, and Qaddaffi got the message. He ramped down the terrorist attacks, and the rhetoric.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -- Quote by Ronald Reagan
Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets. -- Quote by Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation on the Fiscal Year 1983 Federal Budget (April 29, 1982)
By the end of his Presidency, America had recovered from double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, a defeated Military, and a deteriorating economy and industrial base, to a world leading economy. American Car Companies had not re-gained their undisputed leadership, but they had recovered, partly by cross-pollenization with the Japanese companies. Ford and Mazda had bought into each other. GM and Toyota had created Saturn in a joint venture. And Chrysler had joined forces with Mitsubishi.
America was again respected in the World. Americans again had Pride in the Nation. And America elected one of the "most qualified" Presidents to replace him, despite his lack of charisma. Bush Senior was a World War II fighter pilot, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, a Vice-President, and had a host of other things on his resume to demonstrate he could do the job. He soon reaped the rewards of Reagan's Arms Race. In his first year, the Iron Curtain crumbled, to the disbelief of the world. The Berlin Wall fell, the Velvet Revolution succeeded in Czechoslovakia, the Romanians hunted down and hung their brutal Communist Dictator, and the rhetoric of Perestroika and Glasnost overpowered the Soviet Union itself. The East and West Germanies re-united under capitalism, as no one had thought possible only a few years before.
The 80's were an American Decade where Freedom Triumphed and Pride returned to a Nation. There were no apologies for being the Light on the Hill. America Was Great and the whole world knew it.
"Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it."
As I watch events unfold in the world, I increasingly remember parallels I have lived through. I've reached a point in life, where I realize that the current generation has no memory and little education in those same events. Growing up, I had a tainted view of Viet Nam, and elder relatives that spoke in terms of the Great Depression. I laughed at my cousin's crazy afro and bell bottoms, as he attempted to jump on the latest trends, and felt the pains of friends and family as the Nation went through the gas shortages, high inflation, and high interest rates of the Carter years. The American Steel companies were already locking their doors.
In the 1970's, the American people felt defeated. American Politicians & Peacenik Protestors had forced a defeat in Viet Nam. An American President had resigned in disgrace. An Old Ally in Iran had been overthrown, and an Islamist dictatorship had taken over, and taken our Embassy hostage. The Big 3 US Automakers looked ready to shutter the factory doors, as they couldn't compete for American consumers with cheap Japanese imports. Inflation and Interest Rates had hit double digits in the United States. And Nations were falling to communism around the world.
The US appeared impotent in the face of a 3rd World insurgency that had invaded Our Embassy and was holding Our Diplomats hostage. Presidential interference in the manner in which a rescue operation was carried out led to a disaster in the desert, while his "diplomatic" efforts made America look the fool.
In a recent conversation about the pending cuts to the number of Active Duty Troops, a reader asked, "but with the end of the War in Iraq, aren't these 'overflow' Soldiers unnecessary?" (I'm paraphrasing.) The base of the discussion is that the current Administration is cutting 49,000 Soldiers from the Active duty Army. The question is whether this is a responsible thing to do, while we continue our War in Afghanistan, or if the end of the War in Iraq, and the Administration's plan to "end" the War in Afghanistan means that these Troops are no longer needed and hence can be thrown into the unemployment lines.
Some would argue that these aren't wars at all, that the Administration calls them "Overseas Contingency Operations," but to the Troops on the Ground, getting shot at, political correctness does not translate into a change of reality. Nevertheless, we've been at war for 10 years, and one would think that we've increased the size of Our Military since the attacks of 9/11/01. And we did, by a little bit, sorta, but most of the increase in Troops serving every day of the week has been by activating units and members of the National Guard and Reserves. Other shortfalls in manning were filled by sending in Air Force or Navy Troops to back-fill the Army and Marines, in ground operations, in places that Navy and Air Force personnel wouldn't normally be assigned.
The POTUS has said he's going to ask for another $1.2 Trillion debt increase. That's $1200 Billion or $1,200,000 Million. It seems that Trillion is just such an unfathomable number that it seems imaginary to those who are being given the bill: the taxpayers. Unlike prior debt increases, Congress doesn't have to approve this one. All they have to do is not fly back to Washington and oppose it. Yeah, they agreed to that when they agreed to have the "Supercommittee" solve the spending crisis last year.
Hillary and others in the Administration have called these budget deficits the most dangerous National Security issue we face, but they just can't seem to figure out how to stop spending like drunken college kids on their parent's credit cards. Many politicians have been accused of "tax & spend" policies, but this Administration has preferred to spend first and tax later. They figure if the Nation is in enough financial crisis, the taxpayers will take their bitter medicine, that the opposition will approve higher taxes.
But how did we get to a $15 Trillion dollar Federal Debt? Partially, it was a $Billion or two at a time. During Reagan's years, after 200 years of Federal Debt, he was asking for increases of, on average, less than $110 Billion each. It was only in the 1980's that the Total Federal Debt exceeded $1 Trillion. As he re-built Our Military and bankrupted the Soviet Empire in the arms race, America attained the position of the most technologically advanced and best trained military in the world, capable of defeating the Communist Hordes that were threatening Europe. After 40 years of Communist Imperial expansion, the Cold War enemy lost ground to Freedom for the first time in Grenada. At the end of his 8 years, the Federal Debt stood at $2.85 Trillion. The tide had turned in El Salvador to democracy. Nicaragua's Communist Dictatorship was falling. And Americans found their pride again.
It had been a last choice to join the military in the 70's, but by the end of the 80's, Our Citizens looked at their Troops as a source of Pride, and with Respect. The spitting on Troops of the early 70's had ended.
In less than 3 years, the current Administration has asked for and received more debt in a single year than the entire first 213 years of the Nation. In fact, this Administration has asked for and received 3x as much in Debt than the first 200 years of the Nation took to build.
But Bush Sr., was bolder than Reagan. He asked for debt ceiling increases on average of $224 Billion at a time. In the first half of his Administration, we still had the Cold War going on, and as Soviet Empire crumbled, Saddam invaded Kuwait, which launched Desert Storm to expel the invaders of our ally. For the next 10 years, partisans would ask me why we didn't "finish the job" in Iraq. Saddam was still a thorn in our side, but the fact was that the mission in Desert Storm was to expel him from Kuwait, not to remove him from power. It took us 100 hours, with the Military that Reagan had re-built. There were 500,000 American Troops on the ground and on ships in the Persian Gulf.
Bush Sr then said it was time to cash in the "Peace Dividend," to cut our Military Spending and Force, since there was no apparent power in the world that could challenge Our Troops, and we were supposed to be entering a new period of World Peace. He significantly cut the number of Troops stationed in Europe, specifically those awaiting invasion through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from 250,000 to 125,000.
It turns out that it costs a LOT of money to give Military Bases to Municipalities and States. The Budgets under Clinton had to pay for the Hundreds of Millions of dollars to give them away, while simultaneously building new facilities for the bases the remaining Troops would be moved to. Clinton decided not to just cash in the "Peace Dividend" but to sell the Stock that was paying it. He cut the Military by another 20%, over what Bush Sr. had proposed.
That didn't mean smaller Defense Budgets. It meant fewer Troops and that Clerks were transferred to DoD Union Civilian Employees. It meant that cooks were contracted out. It meant that medical staff were hired as Civilians instead of recruited into the Officer Corps. It meant a lot of Union Construction projects and less Military Training. One of my friends at the time had gone over to the Officer side of the house. He couldn't even get the Army to buy camouflage face paint for his Troops in the field.
Clinton asked for increases in the debt ceiling of $451 Billion at a shot, on average. By the end of his Administration, the National Debt had doubled from the end of Reagan's era, to $5.95 Trillion. What had taken 213 years to borrow, had been doubled in just 12 years of Bush Sr. and Clinton, while the Defense Budget was squandered giving away the bases the Army needs to train and scrapping the ships the Navy needed to patrol the high seas. The debt would have accelerated quicker, but the American People elected an opposition Congress based on Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," that promised and delivered in cutting spending, and protecting the Military from a further hollowing out.
We often hear that "Clinton balanced the budget," but it was the unwillingness of political opponents; Newt's Congress and the Clinton Administration to fund the other's pet projects, that slowed spending. Many confuse a balanced budget with lack of debt, but a balanced budget only means we are not going further in debt, not that the debt was paid off. At the end of the Clinton Administration, the National Debt was a bit more than a 1/3rd of what it is today, and twice what it was at the end of the Reagan Era. It was 6x as much as it had been when Carter had left office, but none had requested chunks of Trillion Dollar increases, not yet.
Bush Jr. would be challenged early in office. Clinton's term had left the economy spent. The dot.com bubble had just burst and Congressional mandates to extend home loans to those that couldn't afford them hadn't yet put the housing market on fire. In March 2001, just 2 months into his term, the Clinton Recession started. And just as the economy was recovering, Al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11/01. Clinton had spent his DoD money on Union Construction projects and giving away Military Bases. The Army didn't have Body Armor and didn't have Armored HumVees.
General Shinseki had cut out Armored Personnel Carriers and bought Chinese made Black Berets, for everyone, times two. Even the Army's boots were of Viet Nam style. General Shinseki had decided against modern boots of the same cost. Instead, he had changed the shade of Army dress uniforms, so slightly that only if two were side by side could anyone tell the difference. It was the Troops responsibility to buy the new shade, to the tune of Hundreds of Dollars, per Soldier. After he demoralized the Army and retired, the current Administration appointed him as Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, where he has pressed for and gotten approval of Veterans to pay for their own Combat Injuries, more and more.
So, when we went to war in Afghanistan, there weren't enough cargo planes to get the Troops and Equipment there. There were less than 100 Armored HumVees in the entire Army. There were less than 1000 sets of Body Armor. And training ammunition for the range was at a premium. It all had to be bought. Often, equipment had to be bought, after it was designed for the first time.
The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq not only presented new challenges, such as counter-IED protective measures, but also old ones, such as how to avoid friendly fire. In the first two years of the War in Afghanistan, we had killed more of Our Own Troops, by accident, than the enemy had killed of Our Troops. Nevermind that 'friendly fire' incidents were down significantly from previous wars, they were the biggest percentage of losses, and the people wanted it fixed.
The solutions cost a LOT of money. Blue Force Tracker integrated GPS mapping technology, satellite text messaging, and showed Commanders and units on the ground where all other friendly forces on the battlefield were. It costs tens of thousands of dollars per unit, down to 4 man teams. To Armor those HumVees, a better engine, better transmission, better brakes, and better shocks had to be designed and built to get the old steeds up the hills with 5x the weight and fewer Troops. It cost Billions.
But while the Armored HumVees were very effective against bullets, Troops were still sometimes killed or injured by the most powerful of IED's. The Iranians were even pumping EFP's (exposively formed projectiles) into Iraq as fast as they could produce them. For the heavy IED's, the MRAP was designed and delivered in record time, at a cost of hundreds of thousands per vehicle. External, specialized Armor, was bought and hung on it, in order to counter the more deadly EFP's. Specialized equipment was designed and installed to counter the primary means of detonation being used in Iraq.
And the American people were in an outrage that the Troops didn't have 30 lbs of body armor on. American factories cranked it up to full capacity and still couldn't field body armor fast enough to make up for years of neglect to equip our Troops. At thousands of dollars a piece, the new stuff became outdated as fast as it was produced, and Congressmen pressed for new camouflage patterns quicker than the old could be fielded. The Army went from BDU's to DCU's to ACU's to Multi-cams, which look a lot like the old BDU's, in just a few years. The Navy got their very own urban digital uniforms, which blend in very well with water and hence can't be used while at sea. Representative Jack Murtha, who demanded the Army purchase new uniforms, eventually got an Award from the Obama Appointee to head up the Navy.
To pay for this equipment, Planes, Jets, Body Armor, Blue Force Trackers, Armored HumVees, then MRAP's, that wasn't bought on Clinton's watch, as well as coax the political opposition in Congress into compliance, with pork spending, cost a LOT of money. Though the DoD Budget wasn't increased dramatically, Bush Jr. went to Congress asking on average for $766 Billion increases in the Debt Ceiling. The increases in Spending were smaller than in previous wars, under Roosevelt, under Truman, under JFK, and under Johnson, and even less than they had been under Reagan, in winning the Cold War. We've fought two wars for 10 years, on less money than any of those, in real terms, and with far fewer Troops. As a percentage of GDP, we were only spending 4.3% at the peak of the wars, on National Defense, compared to north of 6% to maintain the peace in the 80's.
Nevertheless, the National Debt nearly doubled under Bush Jr. from what Clinton had finished with. Junior's last Fiscal Budget was a record deficit. Almost a Half Trillion dollar shortfall. Now, some will blame Junior for the 2009 deficit, but all of the money spent in 2009 was approved by Obama. Nancy Pelosi controlled the House in 2008 and Harry Reid controlled the Senate. The junior Senator from Illinois made a special trip to the White House, taking time out from the Everlasting Campaign, to campaign for the TARP bill, spending $787 Billion tax dollars to bail out the banks, and directly benefiting Obama's biggest fundraiser, Warren Buffett. He stayed there until Harry Reid told him he was too young to be at the table. Without that $787 Billion extra, the 2009 Deficit would not have reached $1 Trillion for the first time ever. Without TARP, the budget deficit of 2009 would not have tripled Bush's record deficit of 2008.
But TARP wasn't Obama's last addition to the 2009 deficit. There was also the UAW Bailout bill and the Pork Stimulus Bill, which put signs up everywhere to advertise it, and without which, unemployment would have been 8%, and there was the Cash for Clunkers program, which fueled the Japanese Car Factories. While the "cash for clunkers" program pumped up sales of Japanese cars, it was the Tsunami which shut them down, and in turn pumped up US sales. The UAW bailout bill took the Big 3 from the owners, and sold Chrysler to the Italians and gave Government Motors to the Unions. Only Ford survived it, by not taking the money.
The Budgets of nearly every department of government saw double or triple digit percentage increases. The two parts that did not see increases: the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The Trillion Dollar Deficits didn't get there on increases to the DoD Budget, but rather despite cuts to it, while increasing nearly every other budget, including that of the Department of Treasury and the IRS to the tune of 300%. The Fox history of debt increases attributes the debt of 2009 to Bush, but it should be on Obama's record.
In less than 3 years, even by Fox standards, Obama has requested and gotten increases in the debt equal to 16 years of both Clinton and Bush Jr., greater than all debt accumulated in the first 213 years of our Nation, including the Civil War, two World Wars, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, two wars with Britain, one with Spain, and the War with Mexico, plus lesser wars in Latin America, the Caribbean, twice against Islamists and one against Pirates, as well as the Cold War against the expansion of the Soviet Empire. Obama has increased the Debt in 3 years, by 50% of what it was when he was elected.
Opposition parties in control of various parts of government do one of two things: they buy off the other party by supporting spending on the opposition's pet projects, as we seem to see today, or they compromise on cuts to their own pet projects as we see in the Gingrich-Clinton era. In both the Bush Jr.-Reid era and the Obama-Reid-Boehner era, we're seeing spending rise to get the spending the other wants, but the Trillion Dollar Deficits didn't get here, until we had a party in absolute power under Obama-Reid-Pelosi, and they quickly tripled the record deficit of the year before.
A while back, I created a map overlay demonstrating the worldwide threats, with a focus on Islamism but also including secular and Communist regimes that ideologically or violently oppose us. The world has changed since then. Reluctant allies have distanced themselves in the last 3 years. Lasting allies have fallen. Old enemies have fallen to new enemies. And my current picture editor isn't as good as the one I had then.
There is one small speck of good change in the world. The Sudan split into two nations, helping to decrease the mass genocide of Islamists killing Christians and Animists in the newest Nation of South Sudan. The South Sudanese have an uphill battle to establish their new government and this success began its path years ago. North Sudan remains Islamist, in greater concentration.
Unfortunately, Islamism has spread dramatically in the last year, both in its violent attacks and in its takeovers of governments. Tunisia was the first to fall, followed by Egypt, while the Islamist party of Turkey retained its power. Some have hailed these as successes for democracy, but it is a failure of US Foreign Policy and a blow to Freedom.
The Obama Administration's response to seeing mass protests against an old ally was precisely as was the Carter Administration's. Both in Tehran 1978 and Cairo 2011, the Administration urged a Military Coup against an allied leader. The difference is that the Egyptian Generals were actually able to hold the reins of power for a short period of time, while the Iranian Generals had never really taken the concept as reasonable. In both cases, the protestors were a mix of those supporting Freedom and Democracy and those supporting Islamism. Forces for Democracy outnumbered forces for Islamism, but the Islamists were better organized.
So, Assoluta Tranquillita tells us the top words of the year are Pragmatic and Ambivalence. I immediately wondered how many of the Top Ten I could work into a single article. I expect, with more dedication, I could have used them all, but I immediately decided to avoid some of them.
Even the least interested politicians have noted the great disconnect between Our Troops and Our Citizens. Unfortunately, the most interested of the vitriolic politicians want to re-connect Troops and Citizens by force, in order to undermine popular support for the Mission of Our Troops, i.e. they wanted to re-institute the draft, to force the unwilling to fight for Freedom. The former Representative Charles Rangel-NY, was the primary force behind the move, before he left Congress amidst allegations of misconduct. Mr. Rangel was a Veteran himself, but his belief was that if "the rich" sent their sons to War, alongside the minorities, both would push for an end to the Wars.
The slogan of ethnic and impoverished genocide was used early in the anti-War propaganda, but had no legs. The Military is drawn from across the whole of America, but the fatalities had demonstrated that Caucasian Men bore a disproportionately higher brunt of the fighting. The diversity of the Infantry was stunted, not due to some arbitrary system, but instead by the choices made by Individuals voluntarily enlisting in the Marines and Army Infantry. Proportionately, Hispanic Men are also more likely to join the Infantry and bear the brunt of combat.
So, Bradley Manning's excuse for betraying Our Nation is he's gay:
"The defense revealed that Manning had written to one of his supervisors in Baghdad before his arrest, saying he was suffering from gender-identity disorder. He included a picture of himself dressed as a woman and talked about how it was affecting his ability to do his job and even think clearly."1
In 1992, he would have been asked by recruiters prior to enlistment if he were or ever had been homosexual. He would have been asked by Security Clearance investigators the same question. It would have disqualified him for a clearance and entry into the military.
In 2002, he would not have been asked, but had he told, he would have been removed from the military. In 2009 & 2010, when he told that he was homosexual, he was supposed to have been removed from the military. The picture above comes from Manning's FB page and was posted prior to his arrest. His defense for his crimes is that his homosexuality drove him to commit espionage. His spymaster's (Julian Assange) defense against sexual assault charges is that his homosexuality prevents him from having (wanted to have) assaulted those women.
Manning's defense specifically asked the investigators if they had looked for the gay defense evidence.
"We already knew before we arrived that Pfc. Manning was a homosexual," Special Agent Toni Graham said.
Politicians are often labeled Hawks or Doves, preferring calls for "negotiations" and/or diplomacy to resolve conflicts, or a strong National Defense and expressed willingness to use those forces to reduce threats to National Security, and deter misbehavors from acting on their desires.
The same parties known as Doves, focus on domestic spending programs, while the party of Hawks has traditionally protected the DoD budget from unacceptable cuts. The Doves seem to envy the DoD budget, seeing it as money they could use instead to buy Chinese Solar Panels, Chinese made Black Berets, to build Turtle Tunnels, and Multi-Million dollar Monkey Pagodas so 7 monkeys can live in captivated style. The Doves may claim to be "strong on Defense" but even "The One" who campaigned to place Afghanistan as his top priority, to put diplomacy ahead of the use of force, has done the opposite.
But does the party of diplomacy live up to its slogans? Have Our Alliances been strengthened and Our Enemies weakened during the era of purported Diplomacy? Is America more respected now than it was 4 years ago? Are we safer? Have our enemies fled the field of battle to negotiate peace and reconciliation? Or are old allies turning to alliances and friendships with our old enemies?
Educational institutions are charged with instructing the youth of America about the Constitution on this day. It is an appropriate day, for Americans to take pause, to read and review the US Constitution, to consider what it is and what it is not, to consider the reasons why Our Founding Fathers used plain English to write the 4 pages they did.
"It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster
They used words like shall and shall not. They wrote in a language that does not need "interpretation" but in interpretation has been misused. That simple, strong language clearly outlines the authorities, responsibilities, and restrictions imposed on each of the branches and elements of government. And yes, it is a living document, but not in the way that the "interpreters" would pretend.
Ten Years of a promise to "never forget" and I must ask if just remembering is enough. Sixty-four years of the promise to "never forget" the holocaust hasn't steeled the world against smaller scale versions of similar atrocities and has not prevented "tolerance" of those that still call for the eradication of the very same race. For too many, 9/11 anniversaries and Memorials to the Fallen are simply an opportunity for publicity or a task that must be undertaken. For too many, it seems that it is enough, or even too much, to acknowledge the loss of life, but it is beyond their capacity to understand what is done to prevent a repeat, beyond their abilities to Support Our Troops in their actions, in their sacrifices, and in their risks to do so.
For weeks, leading up to 9/11/11, politicians have taken the podium, newscasts have interviewed celebrities, and newspapers have sought out specific demographics to tell their story. The stage at Ground Zero is to be so packed with politicians on 9/11/11, that there is no room for the Heroes that rushed in on 9/11/01 to preserve as many lives as every fiber of their bodies could save.
Another Veteran emailed me this morning to wish me a Happy 4th and express some of his thoughts on the 4th of July, including how he read the Declaration of Independence, again, to remind him of its importance. That inspired me to post it to our own site. And in reading, I had many thoughts, but didn't feel it appropriate to write them there.
I remembered how the current officeholder, in two consecutive speeches, omitted "endowed by the Creator," in an awkward pause, that I interpreted as confusion as to what to do with a part of the text he didn't like on his teleprompter. If I remember correctly, they eventually blamed the omission on a low-level staffer, but the awkward pause did not seem as if it had been left out on the teleprompter, rather by the speaker. Why is that phrase so important? Should it be stricken from the record, as part of this new "interpretation" of what isn't written, i.e. "separation of church and state?"
SSgt Workman is featured in the Hall of Heroes and a book review on this from Marine Till Death that read it as it was written: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/12/shadow-of-the-sword-by-jeremiah-workman-w-john-bruning.html
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/12/ssgt-jeremiah-workman-navy-cross-usmc-iraq-marion-oh.html and links to prior articles.
Reads like an action novel, but gives insight into the way a Special Forces team operates. Go Along as an SF Medic turned Team Sergeant Trains and Fights in Afghanistan and the Invasion of Iraq.
Advertisements And Search
Subscribers
Sitemeter
Clicky
Stumble Upon: An easy recommendation to others to read:
Stumble It!
Recent Comments