Warfare and the Will to Win

Harlingen, Texas, September 26, 2009:  Another five American servicemen were killed in Afghanistan yesterday.  This was the same day the White House announced our president might get around to reading the report from General Stanley McChrystal seeking thousands of new troops for that combat theater.  It has now been languishing in governmental “pending” files for almost a month.  At the same time, with each passing day our forces find themselves waging warfare under untenable conditions, instead of positions of strength.

If one is to search for a definition of “war”, it will be noted the term is sometimes defined as “An interaction in which two or more opposing forces have a struggle of wills.” This is a fitting explanation for what is now taking place in Afghanistan.  There are opposing struggles of will…and the Taliban has far more will to emerge the victor than a large segment of the American population and their cowardly lackeys in Congress.

If we ever have enough courage to truthfully examine the actions of Americans during times of war, the case can easily be made that our failures and losses in combat can all be traced back to congressional actions, or non-actions that resulted in the American forces defeat. 

Anyone who fought in Korea knows that war story well.  We were inserted into combat following a period after World War II when Congress reduced our military strength and equipment to a level even lower than pre-war manning levels.  Still, the war in Korea could have been brought to a successful conclusion if our forces had been given the political will, manpower and equipment needed to eliminate North Korean forces and convince China to withdraw behind its own borders. 

Instead, on a worldwide stage, our politicians negotiated for weeks on the proposed shape of the table around which they would confer, then talked us into a so-called “cease-fire”.  After 23,615 Americans were killed in action and another 7,600 of our brave youth died of wounds or were declared dead, we departed the battlefield battered and without a victory.

Our ill-fated war in Vietnam is perhaps the premiere example of political cowardice and mismanagement.  Restrictive political regulations stopped the pursuit of the enemy. More political restrictions on everything from combat actions to attacking known safe havens and the political snake dance our Washington “leadership” undertook with corrupt South Vietnamese officials placed America in a position where we won every battle and lost the war.  40,934 American KIA, another 6,300 declared dead or lost to fatal wounds and that final scene of people screaming and hanging on to the skids as the last USA helicopter lifted off the roof of the American Embassy was the ultimate portrait of defeat…and it was painted by the anti-war crowd and Washington D. C.

Our actions in Afghanistan seem to mean we have very limited objectives.  If the goal is to contain everything in its current configuration, then our restrictive proportionality of force will accomplish that objective.  It will also assure there are many more American casualties.

If the objective is to have a decisive victory, our Cowardly Lions in Washington need to grow a backbone and subscribe to the philosophy of overwhelming force.  From Disraeli in the 19th Century to Powell in the 20th Century the established principle has been that the use of concentrated overwhelming force is the key to victory.

During World War I Frederick W. Lanchester formulated Lancaster’s Law that calculated “combat power of a military force is the square of the number of members of that unit so that the advantage a larger force has is the difference of the squares of the two forces.”

In simple terms this means a two to one advantage will quadruple the firepower and inflict four times the punishment.  A three to one advantage in strength will have nine times the combat effect, etc.  In a final analysis, the more superiority one side has over the other, the greater damage he can inflict on the other side and the smaller the cost to himself.  This was the view of Disraeli, Lanchester, Powell and most military strategists. This is also the view of this former Mud Marine and combat scribe.

From this vantage point we cannot hope to match the military expertise of a weekend warrior and rear echelon hero such as John Murtha with his paper-cut Purple Heart, or the fine tuned insight of a three month, medal winning veteran such as John Kerry, who was so valorous in the waters off Vietnam.  Nobody outside of Washington has the knowledge of those great military minds that fill the halls of Congress and the Executive Office.  They know just how to come up with a winning hand.  After all they have a blueprint right in front of them that dates back all the way to 1951.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Rules of Engagement Revisited

Harlingen, Texas, September 22, 2009:  Active duty military personnel, veterans and retirees alike all expressed their outrage and distain for the reported Rules of Engagement (ROE) that resulted in loss of life to four United States Marines and nine of their Afghan army allies. In a Taliban initiated ambush the insurgents out-gunned the joint military unit and pinned it to indefensible ground. The NATO advised Afghan force was denied artillery support and did not receive close air support for more than one hour after coming under attack. By that time 13 lives had been forfeited because of a politically motivated ROE that always favors the insurgents.

Why was artillery support refused?  Why were the helicopter gun ships needed for close air support late?  Why did more Americans die?  Many feel it is due to the always politically orients Rules of Engagement, a war fighting practice that is only rarely understood by the general public, and is seldom clarified or accepted by members of the military community.

One person voicing such an opinion is retired Marine Corps Major Frank Stolz.  This author and authority on weapons of mass destruction points out that the ROE has been a very controversial issue since before World War II.  He explains, “The original rules were formulated through the League of Nations (1929 – 1946) and were mainly written and approved by diplomats, lawyers, peace advocates and many others appalled by the slaughter of millions in World War I.” The actions of that war, according to Stolz, “included the use of poison gases and the destruction of entire cities through artillery, naval gunfire bombardments and for the first time ever, aerial bombardment, often times when the cities were still filled with non combatant civilians.”

Those who formed the first “rules” included a few people who had observed the horrors of war, but most were never in or near the front lines.  They formed their opinions on the conduct of war from places of safety and comfort.

Though the League of Nations attempted to stem the threat of wars, success was never seen.  The first rules they accepted were No shotguns in warfare; No flamethrowers in warfare; No aerial bombing of inhabited cities; Enemy and allied supply ships were to be stopped at sea, the crews and personnel were then allowed to get into lifeboats with sufficient food and water to reach the nearest land, and then their ships would be sunk.  Says Stolz, ”these were but a few of the nonsensical rules made up by pinstripe diplomats and lawyers.” As history tells us, all parties engaged in combat followed few of these rules.

The ROE we find practiced today will vary slightly from one combat zone to another.  It combines the old League of Nation rules along with newer insufferable conditions demanded by the United Nations and many of the European countries.  As Major Stolz points out the ROE was intended for the conduct of warfare by uniformed combatants.  It was not created to deal with terrorists, anarchists, insurgents and criminal elements all hiding among the civilian populations.  Stolz concludes by observing, “Either through stupidity or a desire by some to see us fail, we have now given terrorists who indiscriminately bomb and harm innocent civilians, the same “rights” afforded uniformed military combatants.  That, to me, is akin to allowing serial killers periodic home leaves in order to get their heads straight.”

The retired military community seems to be angered by the ROE now in place and how our government appears to have little regard for the lives of our many troops now in harms way.  Says one veteran, “I believe we are wasting lives in Afghanistan.  It cannot be won without taking out all extreme Islamic fundamentalists.  The Taliban are ruthless.  They follow no rules, period!  They massacre at will.  They are pure evil.  How do we win this?  There is no way except massive casualties across the board.  It is a useless war and one our brave soldiers should not be fighting.”

Marine retiree William Bloomfield write, “Having lived through more than one tour in Vietnam, in spite of the ROEs, it smells to me an awful lot like “de javu” all over again.  Politicians who haven’t a clue in charge of those who do.  It is egos taking precedence over good judgment and common sense.”

Master Sergeant John Clayton says he is an old Vietnam combat veteran, who fought in that war during 1967 and 68.  Clayton says, “There is no substitute for victory and appeasement leads to defeat, as France found out in World War II.  Do our enemies have ROE other than to defeat those who oppose them?” He notes they battle the enemy “kill n any way they can and to hell with humanitarian ROE that our government imposes on our military for political and appeasement reasons.”

One soldier now on active duty, (we will call him Bob) writes, “ I am scared every time I’m told to move into a dangerous area.  Most of us know we will receive little support when things get hot.  Nobody really seems to care about us.  If they did, they would make sure we had the weapons and troops needed to protect ourselves and win this thing.”

General Stanley McChrystal seems to have those same feelings.  He has requested more support troops and equipment.  He has requested thousands more troops and sent the White House a detailed report of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.  He says he needs this support at once and if it doesn’t come we could lose the war.  The report has been sitting on the President’s desk for almost a month and no action has been taken.

While all the political indecision continues, the ROE remains in force.  More soldiers and Marines will be sent into impossible situations and asked to win without the tools of combat needed to complete their tasks.  More calls for artillery will be made and denied.  More calls for air support will be made and delayed.  More Americans will die because of indecision and political cowardness at home.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

More Than A Helping Hand

Harlingen, Texas, September 19, 2009:  The late philosopher and academic Alfred North Whitehead may have described us best when he wrote, “The kindness of the American people is, so far as I know, something unique in the history of the world.” These acts of kindness identified by Whitehead have been repeated uncountable times in the course of our history.  They continue today in the good works of individuals, small groups, large organizations and yes, in many programs of our local and national governments.

An ever-present example of kindness to others and the extending of a helping hand can be witnessed every day of the week in a large building between “E” and “F” Streets in Harlingen, Texas.  It is there Loaves and Fishes of the Rio Grande Valley reaches out to every person who arrives at its door in need.  It is also within the confines of this multi-service humanitarian organization that people can see first hand the devastating consequences of a recession that has eaten its way into every corner of our country.

Just three years ago Loaves and Fishes finished a year of service by feeding slightly more than 76,000 meals to the hungry.  This year the shelter has already provided 105,367 meals and estimates that number will exceed 128,500 people served by the end of the calendar year.  Added to this number are 3,500 bags of food distributed to other families in need.

At the beginning of 2006, Loaves and Fishes had provided 6,202 bed nights to the homeless.  This year will see 10,480 bed nights offered to those with no other place to receive shelter. 4, 560 of those beds will have been provided to women and children.

Almost two decades ago the Harlingen Ministerial Alliance formed Loaves and Fishes to help a growing number of hungry individuals in the city. It opened its doors as a small non-profit soup kitchen serving a single hot meal to those in need.  Today it is a newly refurbished 29,000 square feet of space providing a one-stop homeless and homeless prevention service.  Loaves and Fishes now provides a homeless individual or family with food, shelter, job training and job placement.  It also has a variety of programs and services designed to move people from being homeless and hopeless to self-sufficiency.

Currently the organization is providing the knowledge, skills, manpower and institutional expertise required to administer a large federal project titled the Homeless Prevention and Re-Housing Program.  With a projected $937,120 from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, better known as the stimulus funds, Loaves and Fishes will provide homeless prevention assistance to households that would have found themselves without shelter due to the economic crisis.  It will also provide assistance to rapidly re-house people who are now homeless.

More than 50% of the people staying in the homeless shelter are employed, but need various levels of assistance to make it back to self-sufficiency.  Some of these individuals and families can be helped under this rapid re-housing program. 

Other families now on the brink of becoming homeless can be provided with rent and utility assistance until they are capable of assuming full financial control of their lives.  This help can be from a single month of rental assistance up to 18 months of subsidized financial help.

But, it is not a handout to those who are unwilling to help themselves.  To qualify, all family members must attend a 16-hour course of financial planning.  They must also undergo credit reports and credit repair.  The L&F staff reviews all bills and obligations and each month the families must prove they have used the money saved by the federal program to pay down on their outstanding debt.  A case manager is assigned to every family in the program, to assure compliance.  The final objective is for each family to become debt free or at least have their financial obligations current and manageable.

Estimates made by L&F personnel reveal that rental assistance will be provided to 216 families and utility assistance will be extended to 90 families.  Additional assistance in various forms should also be provided to another 612 families.  In all, more than 3,800 people will be helped on the road to self sufficiency by the partnership efforts of this faith based organization and the federal government.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Rules of Engagement and Other Stupid Decisions

Harlingen, Texas, September 12, 2009:  By now you have heard the story.  Taliban insurgents ambushed a 13-man team of U.S. Marine and Army advisors assigned to the Afghan National Army as they approached a small hamlet.  Repeatedly the Marines called for artillery support that was denied by their commanders and helicopter gunship support that took more than one hour to arrive.  The refused support and slow air response caused the unit to suffer eight Afghan soldiers, one interpreter and four Marines to be killed in action.

The uproar across the military community has been deafening and the NATO commanded forces are now investigating why commanding officers rejected repeated calls for artillery fire.  They are also looking into the reason why close air support that was supposed to be no more than five minutes away took more than one hour to reach the scene of the battle.

Far be it for me to claim I am some kind of Warfighting Strategist.  However, it doesn’t take the military intellect of a Patton to understand dumb decisions or political pontification.  That being said, I have no reason to believe the current Rules of Engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan originated with those commanders on the ground who are actually engaged in the fighting.

The Rules of Engagement now in effect in that war zone are designed to appease the faint hearted rather than win a war.  Are they wrong headed? Yes!  Are they tailored in such a way they will harm our troops in the field?  We have the bodies of four gallant young Marines along with eight national army dead to prove just how wrong the ROE is for Americans and its allies.

According to military spokesmen, the ROE has been tailored to soften the possibility of civilian casualties.  General Stanley McChrystal issued the new ROE restrictions on the use of military force to reduce the risk of further alienating the population, they say.

Colonel Wayne Morris, USMC (Ret) served in the very volatile areas of Kandahar and Helmand through half of 2006 and all of 2008 as an advisor to the Afghan National Army. He says, “With the current ROE in effect, I seriously doubt we will ever get the stabilized level wherein we can turn the tables on the Taliban.” He feels we need to eliminate enough insurgents nor at least neutralize their ability to influence action across a wide area, for any stabilized condition to develop. 

Morris also believes we need to empower the Afghan forces to shoulder the load and gain the confidence of the Afghan people.  He concludes that comment saying, “They have a long way to go before they are anywhere near being considered a viable force.”

While waiting for that national force to come of age, we must continue to endure politically motivated Rules of Engagement that have nothing to do with protecting the lives of our military warfighters.

Regardless of the war we were fighting, instead of allowing our military experts to determine how we engage in combat, political decision makers, almost from the time the first shots were fired in anger, have restricted those who wear the uniform of our country.  In just about every case, politicians created those horrible unintended consequences that resulted in loss of the battle, the loss of victory, and sadly, the loss of American lives.  The most heartbreaking example of that political decision-making is the disastrous finale to Vietnam, triggered by our capitulation and withdrawal.

As an infantry Corporal in Korea, I screamed at anyone who would listen as we repeatedly fought our way to strategic high ground, only to withdraw and be forced to take the same real estate over and over again.  One of the basic rules of battle is to seize the high ground…and hold it.

On another tour of duty, in Saigon everyone wore helmets and carried weapons to and from their various duty assignments.  Military personnel were also allowed to wander the streets of that city freely during off duty hours but it was a court marshal offense to carry a weapon.  Try to figure the logic of that rule.

As an advisor during the early days of Vietnam we were not even allowed to wear our uniforms or fly the American Flag.  At night, on perimeter duty the Marines were not allowed to have ammunition in their weapons.  It was locked up in an ammo bunker and one officer had the key.  If we were fired upon, the ROE called for him to then open the bunker and issue us ammunition. Those rules seem silly in print, but were very serious to those of us who guarded the compound in the dark of night. Our uniform thought was…”What happens if that first incoming round gets the ammo officer or hits the bunker?” This would have been another example of unintended consequences all military personnel face because of wrong-headed ROE. (It is also true that we ignored those ROE and kept a hidden supply of ammunition on our persons.)

Returning to the words of Colonel Morris, “Tying our Warfighter’s hands behind their backs is past unsatisfactory…it’s criminal! I am not saying we should allow our Coalition Forces to move about freely killing everything in their path, but they must be allowed the leeway to take appropriate, decisive offensive or defensive actions when dealing with insurgents.  Not only that, there are a lot of good Afghans who see our approach in dealing with the Taliban as being ‘weak’.  That makes many people over there think the Talibs are stronger…not in all cases, but as you well know, perceptions are damning.”

Again, it should be noted that Wayne Morris has been on the ground in that war zone and has seen our actions up close and personal. He feels two major aspects of how we are conducting our combat strategy are self-defeating.  He names them as “an overly restrictive ROE and the lack of adequate supporting arms.”

He claims the Rules of Engagement have favored the enemy since our involvement after 9-11.  He feels we would have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden if our special operators had been allowed to take him down.  He claims the ROE is even more restrictive now than it was early in the war.  Morris also notes many people are unhappy with General McChrystal.  “He is playing the hand he has been dealt by folks in D.C”, says the colonel.  “He’s no slouch when it comes to fighting unconventional forces, but there would seem to be considerable angst among the operational elements regarding his recent comments that have gone along with the ROE currently in effect.”

The colonel feels the lack of supporting arms have been a major problem from the very start of operations.  “With the exception of USMC and some Army forces now operating in Afghanistan, the other Coalition Force partner nations simply don’t have adequate supporting arms available to them.” He tells of times in Helmand Province when only two armed helicopters (and on a good day four) were available for the entire province.

He claims that some light artillery was available, but it lacked the range to reach many target areas.  He notes further that many of the coalition partner nations have restricted the actions of their forces to the point where they are almost non-combatants.  Added together and combined with Rules of Engagement that often disallowed the use of very limited assets created a situation that, in the colonel’s own words, “Made a recipe for failure…and evidently still does!”

So, as it has always been, the politicians and the political military leaders continue to make decisions and Rules of Engagement that must be followed by Warfighters on the ground.  And, as it always has been, those same military men and women continue to fight two enemies.  Today it is the Taliban, but forever it has been the politicians who though complete ignorance cost us victory after victory…and far too many American lives.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Tears for the Wounded Warriors

Harlingen, Texas, September 7, 2009:  When we develop enough backbone, we should seriously challenge the media on the issue of providing us with its agenda oriented and selected news coverage.  In war related news, both electronic and print media has been very detailed about reporting the death totals of American service personnel, the latest roadside bomb blasts and any military mistake.  What is rarely reported are the feats of our heroes on the battlefield.  Those very special heroes are not only the individuals who perform great acts of bravery, but also the men and women who give of their blood and endure unbelievable pain in defense of every person in this country.

Supporting our men and women in uniform means much more than placing a bumper sticker on the back of an SUV or flying the American Flag on selected holidays.  It means we should really “care” about those who take up arms in defense of the nation.  It means we should be doing everything humanly possible to ease the pain of those who will wear the scars of combat forever.  And yes, it means we should not only mourn our war dead, but also shed tears for all the wounded warriors.

Of course, these expressions of loss or concern are difficult to bring forth when we have an American news media that does everything possible to mute or dismiss the stories of how our young warriors must fight through their pain, often alone, without the comfort of understanding friends and neighbors.

How many wounded warriors does America now possess?  The Department of Defense seems foggy on the subject, but has reported more than 33,000 men and women have been wounded in battle.  There are other reports saying that number is closer to 50,000 and if we are to believe the figures of the anti-war movement, they place the number at 153,000 wounded veterans. But, the numbers don’t really mean that much.  Just one person wounded in action is very important to know about and every one wounded following that first individual should be held close and cared for with great tenderness.

But, in defense of our citizens, it is almost impossible to garner expressions of concern when the public remains uninformed by a distorted, agenda driven media.  For example, how many of you have been told the story of 34-year-old Marine Master Sergeant (MSgt) Eden Pearle, now in Brook Army Medical Center in Texas?

It was one month ago when MSgt Pearle was celebrating his birthday patrolling in a Humvee.  This Recon Marine who has served his country in foreign lands from Africa to multiple tours of duty in both Afghanistan and Iraq could never imagine how that birthday road trip would end.  One moment everything was calm…the next there was an explosion.  Two Marines were killed in the IED blast.  Another was wounded and MSgt Pearle, who was sitting near or over the gas tank, was engulfed in flame and burned over 100% of his body.  He also lost an arm just below the elbow and has had four fingers of the remaining hand surgically removed.

Skilled medical teams have attempted to cover his burned body with salvaged cadaver skin, but there seems to be some rejection of this process that has created infections that can seriously impact his recovery.  If Eden Pearle does survive, his stay in the hospital could be two years or longer.

From his home in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Jeff Pearle, his father rushed to Texas and has been by his son’s side since he arrived at the Army burn unit. His mother, at latest reports, was unable to make the journey.  Marines familiar with the family and their finances have been passing the word on the Internet that assistance is needed to allow them to remain near Eden.  Because of limited income, the father must return to his job on September 12 and will be unable to continue visiting his son.

It seems almost paradoxical that at a time when the nation is fixated on the subject of healthcare, Marines must call out to others wearing the Eagle, Globe and Anchor of their Corps to help another Marine family who deserve far more than this country will ever provide. 

One Marine, Tim Harrington, from the Pearle’s neighboring town of Dennis is being kept informed of the Master Sergeant’s condition and progress.  He is also the person who has initiated a call to other Marines for assistance to a family.  That call was heard by another retired Marine, Randy Givens rg2162@earthlink.net who picked it up from a Special Operations email list and sent it forward to other members of the worldwide Marine family.

This is only one brief story of pain, suffering and sacrifice that should be told again and again in every case where our brave sons and daughters are forever damaged by the ravages of war.  These brave hearts should always be honored, we should always extend a helping hand…and yes, we should shed tears for our wounded warriors.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

What Politicians Never Learn - Truth Does Matter

Harlingen, Texas, September 4, 2009:  It is a very old joke, but for many Americans it still rings true.  The question is asked, “How can you tell if a politician is lying?” The answer is, “His lips are moving!” For most of America today, the “Liar” brand has been firmly burned into the persona of the political elite.  In survey after survey there is the same group of people placed at the bottom of the list of respected professions.  Held in the lowest of esteem are journalists, celebrities, telemarketers, lawyers, used car salesmen and politicians.  Some lists place the used car salesmen at the bottom of the heap, but others reserve that special location for the politicians.

Those who make “America’s Least Trusted List” are the same individuals that over an extended period of time we have come to associate with dishonesty.  We know the “spin” or omissions of journalists, plus out and out falsehoods advanced by the Fifth Estate, have changed the reporting clan into a body of people we can no longer trust.  The drama and the very nature of those who must take on another persona to validate their existence add up to ingredients that allow celebrities to make the same list.  Few in America think an honest statement will ever come out of a telemarketer’s mouth and lawyers are infamous for placing the winning of their court battles ahead of truth or justice.  The negative imprint of the used car salesman is understood by anyone who has come in contact that that special breed of human.  “Say anything to make the sale” is their not-so golden rule.  These are the people who make promises, deal under the table, and offer gifts that never materialize.  They wink, nod, make false pledges and stroke the citizen just to get a name on the dotted line.  Doesn’t that also sound like just about every politician now in office?

When you have a hard time believing anything that an individual says, it is impossible to trust in any promised outcome.  That is exactly the problem with all of the proposed legislation, the results of legislation already in place, and the promises of legislation for the future.  The suggestions about change and the day-to-day statements of the Administration and Congress ring hollow.  There are ever growing numbers of questioning Americans who expect their elected and appointed officials to tell them the truth…and it rarely, if ever, happens.

People who either through feelings of shame or in an attempt to deceive the public, hide their true political leanings are also very likely to garner a feeling of distrust among Americans who seriously study the subject of governance.

When American communism fell from favor in the late 1940s, communists found a place to hide inside the labor movement and within the Democrat Party.  They found that socialists were also held suspect and changed their identifying terminology to progressives.  Even today, American Socialists understand that socialism is a dirty word in the heartland and continue to call themselves progressives. They know that claiming their true allegiance will automatically move them into that “least trusted’ group of citizens.

Today there are 80 members of the House of Representatives and two members of the Senate who have signed their names as members of the Progressive (read Socialist) Caucus.  Among the more recognizable people are Senators Bernie Sanders and Tom Udall.  Progressive, or Socialist House members include Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Bernice Johnson, Ed Markey Jim McDermott, Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson and Dennis Kucinich.  All have been associated with unpopular bills or proposed legislation, hateful rhetoric, blatantly political committee hearings and in some cases suspected illegal activity.

The socialist game plan is to substitute group decision making for the will of the individual.  This is being done in the Obama Administration by substituting the decision making of Thirty-Two (32) unelected and unconfirmed czars for the individual citizen’s decisions through the ballot box.  Among that band of 32 there are admitted communists, socialists, anarchists, abortion advocates, and race baiters.  The czars are very unpopular with the American public and none are trusted.

Even the President has come to be a person many are unwilling to trust.  He has made too many promises that have already been reversed.  He has been associated with too many questionable people such as the former Weather Underground radicals William Ayers and Bernadine Dolm, the America hating Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the criminal Tony Resko, all of whom he discounted as meaningless contacts or casual acquaintances. In the case of Reverend Wright, Obama claimed he sat in the congregation for 20 years and never heard any radical statements.  He also forgot to mention his involvement in the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America and forgets he labored hard as an employee of the now tainted ACORN organization.  Distrust of the President’s agenda keeps mounting. It has reached the point where even an address by the President to schoolchildren has become suspect.

Just as those of us who write political commentary will manage to alienate a large segment of the population, the same will hold true for any politician who champions a particular political party.  What the political elite never seem to realize, however, is what they say…matters.  Once a politician is identified as a “Liar”, her or she not only loses to the opposition, but also loses the good will of those who might support a person who spoke and acted in a truthful manner.  Still, they never seem to get the message.  In our personal lives and “always” in public life…truth does matter.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

A Return From The Land of Nod?

Harlingen, Texas, September 1, 2009:  In deference to those on the radical left who may never open the pages of a Bible, the term “Land of Nod” is taken from the Book of Genesis and refers to that locale as a place of sleep.  Truly, Americans were in the Land of Nod during the many months of the previous presidential campaign.  They had to be sleeping to have allowed such a radical and destructive administration to gain power.

When the army of the far left marched into Washington last January, they were already in friendly territory.  A Democrat-Socialist majority in Congress, willingly assisted by the Bush White House, had already poisoned the economic well with massive TARP bailout legislation.  It was quickly outdone with a stimulus bill that tacked on another $800 billion-plus in debt.

We all heard about the big financial houses on Wall Street who had their futures assured by the taxpayers.  We all read about the AIG bailout that even included enough of our money so the huge corporation could stabilize its foreign investments.  We read about the $14.9 billion bailout to Chrysler and the $50.7 billion bailout to General Motors.  A few people even heard about the $12.5 billion of bailout funds we handed over the GMAC to keep that segment of the auto lending market afloat.  But, we were not too concerned, because we were all off visiting the Land of Nod.

So, now the political elite of Washington is in control of our national financial markets, they will build our automobiles at a design and price the government desires.  They will even handle the financing of those cars and trucks through the government controlled GMAC.

Since they were so deep into the business they never wanted to run, it was only logical for them to come up with “Cash of Clunkers”, which might have been a blessing to some taxpayers, but was really another handout to the auto industry.

They next were talking about “Cash for Crappy Appliances” as a bailout.  Folks would be able to turn in old refrigerators, washers, dryers, air conditioners and perhaps even electric toothbrushes.  They would then get rebates to buy more energy efficient models. 

While all of this was taking place the American public quietly continued resting in the Land of Nod.  It was so quiet across the country that our caring Congress slapped together a pork laden healthcare bill that promised to help its friends and punish its enemies.  It would force every person in America to eventually accept government healthcare. Oh yes, it would also tack on an additional $1.5 trillion dollars to the national debt.

In the space of less than nine months, the Obama Administration and Congress moved us from financial solvency into the status of being the Number One Debtor Nation in the World.  There were a few yawns when this happened, but not many stirred from their resting positions.

So, those of the liberal left looked around and pronounced what they accomplished as good.  They had already managed to control American education.  The teachers unions of the nation were marching in lock step to the socialist drumbeat.  But, they needed to cancel those pesky voucher programs just to keep the public school monopoly happy.

If anyone objected to what the political elite was attempting to accomplish, they already had an army of trial lawyers ready to take up their cause.  The President also wished to establish his own version of the “Brownshirts”, an expanded Civilian Youth Corps. 

The ACLU was so busy attacking everything American its litigators were working around the clock. It was “Change you can count on everywhere.  This was particularly true in Congress and the Administration where nobody felt it was necessary to govern according to the Constitution. If there was too much noise about that issue they could always marshal ACORN and MoveOn.org to handle the distasteful tasks of keeping the country distracted.  But, why really worry?  America was still off in the Land of Nod.

So, the far left thought this would be a good time to expand the agenda.  The President suggested that it would be a good idea if the military and veterans of this country paid for their own health care.  He said they should pay like everyone else because, “Nobody made them sign up in the armed forces.  They were all volunteers.”

He also thought it would be a good idea to cut some of the waste out of Medicare by lowering payments to healthcare providers.  This was suggested even though the payments are now so low many in the healthcare profession will not accept Medicare patients. In addition, he thought it would save a few bucks if we canceled the Medicare Advantage program.

The Administration talked insurance companies to back its play by promising they would get more business.  The same confidence game was played on pharmaceutical companies, promising them a bigger healthcare pie would mean selling more pills.  Some joined in support of the healthcare reform con job.  An eye or two was opening up in Nod.

As a tool to keep costs lower, Congress made sure “end of life” counseling was included in its health care reform/health care insurance reform bill.  With senor citizens now understanding they could be placed on a death list there were a few more stirrings in Nod.  When the VA was instructed to provide veterans, particularly the newly wounded warriors, with the same “end of life” or “quality of life” instructions in booklet form, there were further awakenings.

But, the Administration was still not happy with the controls it was attempting to establish over the citizenry.  Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd decided to control free speech on radio and television by using a variety of FCC rules including 100% profits taxation to silence unsupportive or uncooperative radio or television stations.  The administration also thought it would be a good idea to move cable and satellite television under the FCC umbrella.  And of course, we must have an FCC Czar.  If that wouldn’t do the job of keeping the public silent, the Obama Administration wanted authority to take over or shut down the Internet in the event of an “emergency”.  Eyes were now opening very wide in Nod.

As Americans started to awaken, they also started to talk, and argue, and yell, and rage at what their government was trying to do to them…all in the name of “Change”. They sent Tea Bags to Washington.  They held Tea Parties.  They wrote letters, sent emails, used the telephone. They stormed into town hall meetings.

But, the political elite did not like this noise and got very upset at the citizenry.  Now they were no longer “My Fellow Americans”.  They were mobs, crazies, GOP clones, and radical organizers. Some of the political elite tried to bluster their way past these multiple voiced concerns, but the sound of anger was too much for their timid souls. Most of them just hid from their constituency.

It is now very clear governmental hiding and ignoring isn’t going to work.  From California and Arizona citizens are preparing to move.  From Nevada they are coming.  From Virginia and Maryland and Texas and New Mexico the airline tickets have been purchased and the buses have been chartered.  Americans from across the country are marching on Washington D.C., September 12, 2009. They will be presenting grievances against wasteful spending, pork laden legislation, bank and auto bailouts, increased taxation, government control of salaries, the firing of corporation CEOs, unprotected borders, inattention to the illegal alien threat, government control of healthcare, unconstitutional czars, the threat of housing terrorists in the USA, the closing of Gitmo, the movement into socialism and a score of other misuses of their governmental offices.

Most of all, these Americans want their country back.  They want limited government and they want The Constitution of the United States of America restored to its rightful place as the binding authority for the governance of our nation.  Those in the power seats of government should really start paying attention.  Joe Six-Pack and Molly Mall-Shopper are no longer asleep in the Land of Nod.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks