Since the Revolutionary War Virginia has been the titular home of America’s Armed Forces which brings to the state myriad Defense Contractors, their representatives and thousands of defense related jobs. The Pentagon is located in Virginia as is the huge Navy Yard at Norfolk and countless Army and Air Force installations are located throughout the state.
All these installations are manned by military personnel with their families living in Virginia. It can be said that as goes America’s Armed Forces, so goes military spending in Virginia and spending at military and military support facilities all across the nation.
When the nation’s Defense budget is large those working at the bases and military facilities are flush with money, and all the little and big stores and local businesses enjoy the good life. If the Defense budget is cut in Virginia, Defense spending is cut nationwide.
But all of this depends on who is sitting in the White House as Commander-in-Chief. For the last five years the actions of the President and the Democrat Party have been directed toward weakening and shrinking the size of America’s armed forces. In the words of the old folk song, “The times they are a changing.”
The nation went through this before, in the administrations of Presidents Carter and Clinton. The results were the same. Military readiness crashed. The Navy’s ships were unmanned and rotting in port. The Air Force didn’t have enough repair parts to put a full squadron of planes in the air at any one time. The Army and Marines were improperly trained and outfitted and didn’t have enough boots to effectively put them on the ground anywhere. And our friends and allies doubted our reliability.
Isn’t it interesting that at a time when U.S. Military forces are being drastically undermined and dangerously shrunk that non-defense civilian-military forces are being greatly expanded. How is this possible?
The Pentagon doesn’t have enough money to recruit, train and support the nation’s military, but federal departments like the Department of Homeland Security have more than enough money to create, outfit and equip their own civilian armies, from scratch.
Civilian pseudo-armies have sprung up in many of the federal government’s non-military departments and agencies. So we don’t have enough money to keep our military trained and ready for deployment, but we have enough money to create civilian pseudo-armies that do not report to the Congress or the Pentagon.
For what purpose are these civilian armies being created? It can’t be to deploy them overseas to fight alongside our armed forces in wars like the one in Afghanistan. No, these civilian armed forces are meant to fight within the continental limits of the United States.
And who is their enemy? Basically there are three possibilities. First, they can be used to fight terrorists who sneak into our country to kill innocent Americans. Second, they could be used to interdict illegal aliens infiltrating our borders. And third, they could be used to control and harass American citizens at the beck and call of the federal government, much as pseudo-legal SWAT teams now operate across the nation with impunity; but to do this the nation’s military forces must first be neutered, which seems to be the President’s plan.
As best I can determine, the White House has fired more high ranking generals and admirals in the last year than in the past fifty years combined. The cause of their retirement is less than clear. The Pentagon suggests that perhaps they may have been involved in improper relationships, whatever that means, or they have been too openly critical of Administration policy. This is code for their not being “Yes” men.
If they do as told without questioning, even when they know what they are being asked to do is wrong, they will be rewarded with a promotion. If they insist on modifying their instructions and doing what is right, they will get fired.
Clarity of purpose and definition of what is required to do to win, matters. Both Congressional Democrats and Republicans say they want to avoid the deep Defense budget cuts scheduled to take place next year which amount to about $20 billion. Entitlement spending is scheduled to remain close to where it is now.
But war is not a zero sum proposition. Just because entitlement spending goes up, doesn’t mandate that defense spending goes down. This nation shouldn’t increase or limit the number of soldiers, aircraft, aircraft carriers and submarines deployed around the world based on entitlement spending requirements or whether taxes have been increased.
Defense spending should be determined solely by the nation’s national defense needs, not simply to balance arbitrary budget requirements. Each soldier, sailor or airman needs to know, down to the last one, that their President and Congress will not cavalierly send them off to risk their lives or to die on some irrelevant foreign battlefield for some extraneous cause based on a budget.
Now is the time for senior admirals and generals to stand up, speak up for the troops they lead and tell Congress and the President in no uncertain terms that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are not being properly trained, equipped and led in places like Benghazi and Afghanistan, sometimes just because their Politically Correct rules of engagement are wrong.
They should be allowed to take out any foreign soldier who even looks like he’s about to fire on American troops or on our allies. If a mistake is made and an innocent is killed, as best as is possible restitution should be made. But there should be no second guessing of our soldier’s actions.
Our senior generals and admirals would do well to remember the words of German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoeller when speaking of the NAZIs. “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out … Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
For a leader, knowing what is going on where and when in your organization is as natural as drinking a glass of water. A real leader monitors what is going on at all levels during an action. That is, he must know what is being done where, when and why. And if for some reason he doesn’t know, he goes to wherever he must and finds out.
Gathering and evaluating information is one of a leader’s most important jobs. That is why in combat when he arrives, and a battle is in progress, he immediately goes to the sound of the guns. He appreciates all the information he is given and briefings are always helpful, but nothing can replace seeing the fighting and dying first hand, with his own eyes.
Subordinates know the kind of things, the kind of information their leaders need to have to make the right decisions because they have been trained by them. A leader, through his words and actions, signals to his subordinates the kinds of things he needs to know, the information he needs to have.
When an action like Benghazi goes wrong you shouldn’t have to send someone to wake up the Commander-in-Chief to get your orders. He should already be there, in the war room, eagerly waiting and fully prepared to take charge.
The question that wasn’t asked in Libya and no one in the chain of command seemed inclined to ask and get answered in the Mediterranean or back in Washington was simple. “Who is in charge?” Once you figure that out, the questions, answers and actions flow naturally.
About the Obamacare rollout the President says, “No one could be more frustrated than I am and this isn’t smooth.” The American people don’t give a care whether he is frustrated or not. His state of mind is irrelevant. The question is what is he going to do to relieve the American people’s frustration.
If he must personally go to the website headquarters, take charge of the operations and stay there until they are fixed, that is what he should do. That is leadership. Someone can bring him in a cot for sleeping and I’m sure McDonald’s would be happy to feed him for free.
Health and Human Services Secretary , Kathleen Sebelius, Says that the President didn’t know that there was so much trouble with the rollout so he couldn’t be faulted for not getting personally involved in fixing things. That is a lot of rubbish.
Obamacare is important, it is the President’s and the Democrat party’s signature piece of legislation, so why didn’t the President know that it was facing a disaster? Why didn’t Sebelius tell him face to face? What did she have to do that was more important?
Once she knew what a disaster the Obamacare rollout was, she should have driven over to the White House, knocked on the Oval Office door and said, “Houston, we’ve got a problem.” A few tired and groggy astronauts locked up in a space capsule could figure out that they faced disaster, but an entire department of the government back in Washington couldn’t figure out the same thing? Give me a break.
Leadership matters. The American people have been waiting for five years for the President to deliver to them Obamacare. He and his minions have huffed and puffed, and shilly-shallyied and delivered nothing. It is time they called in Amazon.com and let the adults take charge.
Clarity of purpose and definition of what is a winning outcome matters. Both Congressional Democrats and Republicans say they want to avoid, at all costs, the deep Department of Defense spending cuts currently scheduled to begin taking place next year. Both sides say they want to be bipartisan and to strike a fair and acceptable deal.
But wait, aren’t these the same two sides that a week ago said they were working toward striking a deal concerning a government shutdown? Didn’t their efforts end in the Republicans getting nothing and the President and the Democrats getting everything they wanted? Why should the result be different this time?
Just as they did before, Republican leaders have sent word to the White House that they are open to bipartisan negotiations. Naturally the President and the Democrats are open to such negotiations too, so long as it results in the Republicans caving in and the Democrats getting everything they want. This is the customary Democrat definition of bipartisanship.
Next year defense spending is scheduled to be cut by about $20 billion, while entitlement spending is scheduled to remain close to where it is now. Both parties seem to have generally agreed that sufficient money can be made available for defense spending by reducing entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security along with reductions in military spending.
The sticking point is the amount of the reductions and whether taxes will be raised or the budget cut. But the pitting of entitlement spending against spending for military equipment, training and maintenance requirements is absurd.
War is not a zero sum proposition. Just because entitlement spending goes up, doesn’t mandate that defense spending go down. Conversely, just because Defense spending goes up, entitlement spending doesn’t have to go down. Increasing taxes is a separate matter.
Defense spending should not be determined by the size of entitlement spending or savings. Defense spending requirements should be determined by national defense needs. America shouldn’t increase or limit the number of soldiers, aircraft, aircraft carriers and submarines it deploys around the world based on non-military budgetary matters such as entitlement spending. We should deploy the nation’s armed forces for combat based on national defense requirements alone.
First we must determine the size of the military forces required to win, and then match that requirement. If we can’t match it, we shouldn’t be involved in the military action in the first place.
Our soldiers and marines should never be sent off to war with the nation saying, “We know you need more arms and ammunition to protect yourselves and win and get the job done right, and we know that many of you will be killed because of dangerously reduced readiness levels and because we couldn’t afford to equip and support you properly. But that’s all we can manage to pay for.
“You have our best wishes, and we know that you will do the best you can with the equipment you have and will represent our country to the bet of your ability, considering your shortage of equipment and your reduced level of military preparedness and readiness.”
Our armed forces should never be sent into combat like that, without clarity of purpose and a definition of what is a winning and acceptable outcome and whether it can be achieved. They need to know down to the last soldier in the ranks, that their President and country, because of budget constraints, will not send them to risk their lives or die on some irrelevant foreign battlefield.
Enough is enough. Last week 88 year old Shorty Belton of Spokane, Washington, a white American and a veteran of World War II fighting in the Pacific, was beaten to death in the streets of Spokane, for no apparent reason, by two black teenagers, a sort of Trayvon Martin casein reverse.
About this senseless killing there has been almost no outrage expressed by black American leaders like Congressmen John Lewis and Charley Rangel, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, black churchmen, the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus, Oprah and the President, or the Ritz-Carlton Democrats. Instead they have chosen to assume the role of victims rather than of responsible adults. They are long on speeches but short on positive action, and any helpful insight they might have is short-lived.
Following in line with their actions during the Trayvon Martin travesty they should all be leading huge civil rights demonstrations protesting the murder of Mr. Belton and demanding that black parents, families, communities and churches get and keep their black teenagers under control. And where is the continuous drum beat of outrage from the national news media that is supposed to inform “we the people.” There is none. Instead, these racial hustlers and parasites have, for the most part, gone mute on the public.
If America’s black leadership isn’t going to take charge of and clean up their own mess, white leaders will have to do it for them. You can’t expect white Americans to keep looking the other way while black teenagers beat their fellow white Americans to death. Evidently black leaders seem to think it is alright for black teenagers to profile Shorty Belton and kill him and they need not comment on how wrong it is, but it’s not right for a white policeman to profile someone black and kill them.
The news media and the current White House Administration don’t seem to care how many white Americans are murdered by black teenagers; rather, their actions and speech encourages racial violence and polarization. The American sub- culture has bred derelict families awash in video games and nose and lip rings, sporting dark green, blue and black tattoos, going around jerking, bopping, weaving, rapping and Hip Hopping, with their baggy pants falling off their butts. This isn’t “cool;” it is embarrassingly crude and stupid, and black leaders should loudly say so.
Today America’s young people wallow in moral decay and an absence of influential parenting that can lead to murder born out of boredom. It is easy for American teenagers to become bored. They live with one parent; don’t have to work to pay rent; and the government and tax payers feed them. They need to go where they can find real work, like to the oil fields of the Dakotas. Additionally, if the government wants to help them, it can put together labor pools as FDR did during the Great Depression. Let them clean out the national parks and help maintain badly needed roads and bridges.
But care must be taken that the work and the hiring of workers is kept under control of private companies not the government. It cannot be allowed to degenerate into make work projects where the workers need only show up and then goof around all day doing little or nothing. In addition to providing work there has to be a way to teach moral values and self- reliance, accountability and a work ethic, things their families, churches and schools should have taught them but didn’t. We do not need crime and drug infested cities like Detroit and Chicago involved in the process, cities that celebrate corruption, criminality, and victimization.
Restoring black families and the positive affect they traditionally have had on our communities and cities has to be one of our main efforts. With 72 % of all black babies being born out of wedlock and half of the others aborted, the black American family and the black community have fallen into decay, disrepute, and disrepair. They need a good old fashioned dose of leadership from people who genuinely care about them, their communities and their futures.
The question is can these families and communities ever be reconstituted again, and do we have a sufficient number of black leaders who can and are able to shoulder the vision and burdens of a Martin Luther King, Jr.? Can Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton do it? If the answer is no, and I believe it is, then America’s white leadership will have to get rid of them and select their replacements.
Why don’t I suggest that Black Democrats select the replacements? Because Black Democrats are fine for house work, but not for doing heavy lifting. Name one that has put forward a meaningful call to action with a plan to restore the black family and community. You can’t. And black Republicans don’t count in this discussion because as elections show, more than 90% of the black community is Democrat and Democrat controlled.
One of the accusations made by blacks to discourage young black people who are striving to be successful is, “You are trying to act white.” Since white people own most of the major corporations and industries and run all the state governments in this country, it would seem that for a young black American to be successful, he or she would have to follow the work rules laid down by white Americans. This includes dressing for success and practicing proper speech and conduct. If this is acting white, then so be it; and black leaders should loudly and publicly go on the record saying so.
Enough is enough. 88 year old Shorty Belton, a WW II veteran, was beaten to death on a street in Spokane by two black teenagers. Like it or not, his death came about because of deficient character content and a failure of leadership. It was also caused by a failure of adults to teach teenagers the difference between right and wrong and good and evil and how, why and when one should stand and fight for the right. Isn’t it time for all of us to get involved in building a better America?
America cries out for the kind of leadership poet Josiah Gilbert Holland spoke of when he said, “God give us men. A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands … Tall leaders, sun crowned, who live above the fog in public duty and private thinking.” Instead, we have Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s, men who mean well but are incapable of dreaming Dr. King’s dream, men who lack vision, who lack revelation and the spirit of prophecy. About whom Dr. King said, “We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.”
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013, President Obama gave a speech to the nation from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial commemorating the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s. I Have a Dream speech. He described King’s speech this way, “His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our times.” And of the Civil Rights demonstrators who accompanied Dr. King he said, “In the face of hatred they prayed for their tormentors. In the face of violence, they stood up and sat in with the moral force of nonviolence.”
That day President Obama had a wonderful opportunity to advance America’s cause of racial harmony, to comment on the new world order to which Dr. King had given birth and speak of the old order which had passed away. Dr. King’s speech did not dwell on racial injustice, but was a testimony to the promise of America’s future. He said “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed.” It was a message of promise, hope, and the promise of a wonderful future.
Following in the footsteps of JFK, President Johnson was fully prepared to implement strong measures that would lead to full equality for black Americans, but the post-Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights leadership failed to offer such programs. Under them there was little food for the soul; and no new black Civil Rights leader stepped forward to take the movement’s flag from Dr. King’s staggering grasp and carry it forward into the sunlight of a brave new world. So when Dr. King was assassinated, not just a great black opportunity was lost, but a great American opportunity was lost.
Dr. King said, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” Such men are comfortable and popular in black groups and communities, but they ignore the demands of the national house in which we all live. So when Dr. King was assassinated political children took charge of what was left of the crusade, not adult statesmen, and they led the movement down the road of stumbling destruction.
No black conservatives spoke at this MLK commemoration, no black politicians, no surgeons like Dr. Ben Carson, no Supreme Court Justices like Clarence Thomas, no Congressmen like Allen West, no school choice advocates or charter school activists, and no black Senator. I’m told that at the last minute, when it was too late, a few black conservatives were invited to come.
You see, this gathering was not to bring Americans together, nor to be a time of healing and brotherly love, not to celebrate the racial progress made over the past 50 years; nor was it to honor Dr. King and the black leaders of the 1963 March on Washington. It was merely a stunt, a political confab designed to honor and puff up black and white Democrat party elites.
Their speeches brushed aside serious subjects such as self-reliance, honesty, sacrifice and hard work. Work gives us purpose, hard work brings success. Unfortunately no one extolled these virtues that day. God give us men, real men, well-schooled and well- behaved.
Today evil is praised throughout the land and the foundations of law and order have collapsed. Seventy-Two percent of all black live births are out of wedlock and half of those remaining are aborted. These facts were omitted or glossed over at the commemoration. As a nation we need to refocus, to reset; we need a new vision and a new Martin Luther King Jr. We desperately need passionate new leaders, Democrat and Republican, leaders with fire in their bellies.
So, let freedom ring and though we walk in present darkness, in the distance we see a glimmer of the light of hope and deliverance signaling that one day the US will again rejoice in the goodness of its people and in the greatness of its leaders. Until then, let freedom ring!
Probably all presidents from time to time have daydreamed about how delightful governing the United States would be, if only they had imperial, dictatorial powers. Two have actually tried to govern that way, by evading Congress and circumventing the Constitution: Presidents Nixon and Obama.
Countering this accumulation of presidential power is a small group who believe that they have every right to circumvent the rules of our constitutional government. They are called Whistleblowers. They take an oath to protect the nation’s secrets by their silence, but at some point they feel that they have the right to betray that oath.
Evidently these whistleblowers believe that they are a better judge of when and how an oath can or should be broken than a Cabinet Secretary who has been nominated for his position by the President and examined and approved by the U.S. Senate.
Since their actions are a betrayal of and violate both the word and spirit of the law and of governing, any examination of a whistleblower’s motives should begin by setting aside petty party politics. Whistleblowing should not be about one party scoring political points over the other party. It should be about protecting the nation’s security.
In the process of protecting the secrets of the nation, is there any policy or action so egregious that it justifies betrayal of the oath of silence? Possibly yes, but not until all other remedies are exhausted, including a visit to the Office of the Inspector General or a request to speak privately to the boss. Only after these kinds of efforts fail to produce results should a member of the government consider betraying his oath.
President Nixon assembled and employed a clique of political hit men who were blindly loyal to him instead of to the Constitution or to “We the People.” Eventually this led to a political enemy’s hit list and the abuses of Watergate, followed by impeachment proceedings. The current Administration seems determined to repeat all of these failings, including impeachment. But we can be assured that there is a “Deep Throat” whistleblower hunched over in a dungeon somewhere waiting to be unleashed.
Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods, lost, erased and destroyed audio tapes that would have incriminated Nixon in Watergate. President Obama’s entire Administration routinely loses and destroys tapes and emails and brags about it openly. At the same time, requests from Congress to the White House for information are publicly ignored.
The Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder, openly defies the law, the Constitution and Congress in its efforts to advance the Obama agenda and cover up the Administration’s wrong doing. President Nixon tried to get the Justice Department to defy the law and support his efforts to circumvent Congress. Fortunately he was unsuccessful. Almost anywhere this administration is ripe for a whistleblower to perfect his blowing.
Nixon and his hit men tried their best to intimidate journalists into being part of the White House Watergate cover up or to at least not write negative or defamatory stories about the President. Washington Journalists and elites are openly on President Obama’s side and vigorously working to cover up his mistakes and misstatements. Still, the White House threatens them to keep them in line and openly rooting for the President.
This is about a dictatorial president who is trying to amass enough power so that he is able to destroy all opposition. In short, Obama does whatever he wants. Anyone who opposes him is branded a racist, marked for destruction and put on the IRS’s and the President’s enemies list. Such actions are reminiscent of those of a Third World dictator.
Nixon tried unsuccessfully to block law suits that fingered him as a perpetrator. Obama openly ignores Congress and blocks law suits that could implicate him and his Administration in wrong doing. When he isn’t ignoring or belittling Congress, he’s mocking or defying it. He made this clear in his recent Jacksonville, Florida speech. The President said: “I’m going to act on my own. I won’t wait for Congress.” And: “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.”
President Obama is trying to redefine America’s government, and in so doing is rewriting the Constitution. The danger is that if the Democrats win the election next year and end up controlling the House, Senate and White House, a few will probably try to find a way to elect Obama to a Third Term. Could that be followed by a “President for Life” effort?
It is time the Supreme Court and the Congress woke up and realized that there are no longer three separate and equal branches of government. Now there is only one supreme branch of government led by a White House dictator. What fertile ground for a whistleblower.
The not-so-supreme judiciary and the Capital Hill crowd have unwittingly become presidential spittoons.
A real leader revels in challenges, problem solving, and accepting responsibility. Military units and civilian organizations expect their leaders and commanders to know how, or at least be able to discover how, to solve problems. That is why they are chosen to be leaders.
One of the first things the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia teaches those it trains to become officers is, “A Leader and Commander is responsible for all his or her organization or unit does or fails to do.” They are also taught never to blame failures on their predecessors, no matter how easy or tempting it is.
They accept existing successes and failures as their own, build on the successes and fix the existing failures and problems. Today the United States could use a strong dose of Fort Benning infantry officer style leadership at every level of government, especially at the top of the IRS, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the White House.
The current presidential administration is peopled at the top with more untrained, inexperienced bureaucrats than any administration I have witnessed in my lifetime. It is the fault of the news media and our citizenry. From the beginning the news media failed the nation; it failed to do its job of vetting President Obama and his subordinates. It supported and is still supporting and championing the appointment of unseasoned, inexperienced political operatives to important high level government offices.
When Candidate Obama told the nation he was going to change America, our gullible, trusting citizens cheered but failed to ask, “Change from what to what?” That is, they failed to do their part in making the government work by not using their common sense to vet the new president to be. So while our overly trusting citizens slept at the switch, the news media helped deceive the nation into electing an untried, inexperienced, inept president.
Daily the American people lose more and more confidence in President Obama and his administration’s ability to set the course for the future, lead, and manage national and international affairs -- one of the reasons being his repetitive use of the words, “I, my, me, and mine.” Most things he does or says seem to center around him or his person.
The second reason is his failure to take responsibility for his actions and those of his subordinates. When caught in a lie or questioned about an embarrassing occurrence, he pleads ignorance of the facts, his subordinates gladly emulate him, and the news media gives him a pass.
Now is the time for Obama to get out in front of the IRS debacle. Of course this requires the conducting of a full investigation, not just a superficial audit. To be trustworthy and believable the inquiry must be a serious investigation, free and independent of the administration’s influence. This requires the appointment of a fully empowered independent counsel of some sort. Anything less will not gain the confidence of the American people and its findings will be suspect. If, in the traditional sense, President Obama ever intends to lead this nation, now is the time for him to start doing it.
There is so much we do not know about the IRS fiasco. But we do know that when it comes to investigating and intimidating innocent citizens and their activities the IRS is in cahoots with the FBI, which is in cahoots with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is in cahoots with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on and on it goes …
What is also clear is that all these departmental agencies could not have initiated this investigative abuse and intimidation without its being coordinated at a higher governmental level – like by the White House. Does anyone really think the FBI is going to take orders from two or three low level IRS agents in Cincinnati?
The IRS officials who recently appeared before a Congressional Committee that was inquiring into the matter of IRS abuse had been carefully coached, their answers coordinated and they were fully prepped. Generally speaking the same talking points carried through all their testimony, phrases such as: I don’t remember… I’m not familiar with that … I don’t inquire into ongoing investigations ... I’m not familiar with the content of those papers … I accept general responsibility for what happened on my watch, but not for the specific actions of others who worked for me … I am not responsible for what my subordinates did or fail to do. They obviously didn’t take any leadership classes at Fort Benning.
The White House and its cabinet officers should either “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” So far they have failed to do any of the above. As President, Obama is responsible for setting the nation’s leadership tone and style and for providing the example for all of his subordinate leaders to emulate.
Above all, he should remember that as President he is responsible for all that his administration does or fails to do. If he isn’t willing and able to assume that heavy mantle of responsibility, he shouldn’t have run for the office.
© Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry, US Army Ret.
As Chinese influence rises in the international corridors of power some would have the United States surrender its current world leadership role in Europe and pivot towards Asia. This is a repeat of the late 1980s and early 1990s, a time when the US was believed to be in serious decline, Japan appeared to be transcendent, and many believed it would rise to preeminence in the world’s economic corridor of power.
Those of us who refused to surrender to the idea of the US losing its position of dominance in the world were laughed out of conferences. Now China is rising and supposedly is going to squeeze the US out of its place at the head of the international table.
In support of this eventuality, the Army is being redesigned to be small, nimble and capable of carrying out diverse missions. Supposedly forces armed with heavy armored vehicles like tanks are no longer that necessary nor desirable as sequestration and other peacetime budget cutting mechanisms force the Army to drastically shrink in size and to live within its budget.
This is lunacy. For the US the size, equipping and quality of its Army should never be determined by budget availability. Its size and equipping can only be determined by its worldwide strategic requirements and missions. Our military forces can’t be trained and sized by academic and military philosophers or philosophy.
We should not pivot towards Asia just because the phrase has a nice ring to it and it seems like a clever thing to do. If the US military pivots westward, it should be because that is where national defense policy and military events demand that we be. Right now our pivot must be toward countering the inroads made by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Middle East, specifically in countries like Iran, Syria, and Turkey. Israel will be asking for help to fight a ground war on its borders, not an insurgency in Gaza.
Some think that while the numbers, types, and complexity of Army missions worldwide increase, the size of the Army can decrease. True, smaller more flexible, more lethal units prepared to conduct a mixed range of operations from old fashioned tank battles, to cyberdefense, to meeting special operations requirements, to training and advising allied military forces, to conducting humanitarian relief missions, to winning the hearts and minds of enemy peoples are desirable. But an unbreakable rule is that as the number and scope of Army mission’s increases, the size of the Army needed to successfully carry out these missions must increase accordingly. Successful wars can’t be fought on the cheap.
And there are personnel considerations. The current leaders of the Pentagon -- civilian and military -- are engaging in near criminal activity. They are allowing the members of our armed forces to be repetitively sent back to fight in the war in Afghanistan three, four and five or more times because that is easier than fighting the Congress, President and news media to increase the size of the Army; even though they know that somewhere around the third or fourth tour, the chances of a service member returning home in a body bag increase substantially.
The military has always been criticized for preparing its forces to fight the wrong war, or the last war now that that war is over. But it is not the military’s job to predict which wars the nation will fight. That is determined by national defense and national security policy, which is determined by the Secretaries of Defense, State and the White House.
For the foreseeable future the US will continue to be the dominant military security leader in the world. It is the military leadership’s job to train and equip these forces to be fierce, flexible and able to carry out the nation’s security roles worldwide, to react to unforeseen threats and to fight and win under all conditions.
While the phrases “A Pivot to Asia” and “China Rising” are catchy and have a nice ring to them, for now the United States is destined to play a dominant role in world security affairs. That is why today the world’s nations look to the armed forces of the US as their court of last resort. This is the role that destiny has carved out for us. No other nation can fill that role.
Our armed forces must be ready at all times to meet that role, provided the Congress and the White House aren’t successful in their current efforts to dull and destroy our military’s sharp fighting edge.
In 2011 more than 30,000 Americans died from gun injuries. A penchant for violence seems to have crept into our everyday life from cell phone games to movies and television, and it has spawned within our nation a culture of cruelty. We seem to have lost our traditional societal bearings, our sense of what is right and acceptable compared to what is wrong and unacceptable. In the process we have developed a culture of personal and collective violence.
It is easy but wrong to blame this violence on inert assault rifles and the size of gun magazines which, if left to their own devices, harm no one. No assault rifle or 30 round magazine was used in the recent Boston Marathon massacre; rather, steel pellets were used to maximize wounding and damage to the innocent bystanders. Will Congress now outlaw steel pellets? Will that be effective?
It is neither the assault rifle nor the size of the gun clip that is the problem. It is that violence has become a way of life in these United States; a failed societal and cultural condition has developed. Once human life in America was honored and safeguarded. But forty years ago a new day dawned, one in which the taking of human life became so routine and casual that it fell into the category of the “commonplace.” Why? Because that was where the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be. Decency, honor, dignity and value were stripped from human life and its worth was diminished to the point where it could be, with impunity, tossed casually into a garbage dumpster.
That day murder became “matter-of-fact.” The Court took it out of the “Thou shalt not kill” category of the Ten Commandments and grouped it together with the inconsequential. To be sure this grouping was disapproved of by many American citizens, but not by enough of them to force society to reject the new attitude toward murder. That day in 1973 Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, violence increased, and American civilization started down a lethal road that leads to societal violence and then decay.
Meanwhile, the news media continues to pour gasoline on the raging fire. If a crazy murderer kills someone with a gun, the news media fans it into a major gun violence story. If an abortionist kills a baby and its mother in a botched abortion, the news media does not even cover the story. Gun violence is news worthy; murder by abortion is not news worthy. Yet, by far, more Americans are killed by abortion than by guns.
At the time of the Roe v. Wade, ruling the Court’s reasoning was that unborn babies were part of a woman’s body, therefore they were her property; and, according to the Constitution, women were given the right to dispose of their property in any way they saw fit, much as was the case in the Dred Scott decision which was issued by the Court just prior to the Civil War. In Roe v. Wade the Court ruled that because unborn babies were property, only the legal owner of that property -- the pregnant woman herself -- could decide whether or not to terminate the life of her unborn property.
Since then the miracle of DNA has been uncovered and DNA now proves, beyond all scientific doubt, that an unborn baby is not part of a mother’s body. Therefore, the unborn child is not property of the mother and the mother has no legal right to kill the unborn baby; so the Court cannot leave it to the mother to decide whether or not to abort the unborn child.
What happened back in 1973 was that the Supreme Court changed the word “murder” to a less offensive word; it was changed to the word “abortion.” Since then the word murder has been given an evil connotation; and the word abortion has been given a good connotation.
But abortion is nothing more than Court legalized and sanctioned murder. If society won’t safeguard a child’s life within the safety, sanctity, and security of a mother’s womb, why should it safeguard that same life when it is walking down a neighborhood street?
Someone once said, “Nothing is finally settled until it is settled right.” That is probably why the Roe v. Wade decision is still the subject of open, sometimes violent debate and the cause of violent demonstrations throughout the land. “We The People” will never accept it because deep down we believe that the Court’s ruling is wrong, and more and more people are speaking up and saying so. Therefore, the Court may one day be forced, by the American people, to reverse and overrule the Roe v. Wade decision.
If the Vatican’s new Pope Francis wants to make a maximum impact on restoring justice to American society and preserving it throughout the world, one of the things he might consider is coming to Washington and helping get America’s Catholic Supreme Court members to act in line with their church’s teachings.
The Pope could start by telling the Justices that the Court has sinned a great sin and that they need to confess their sins, ask for forgiveness and let him absolve them. Perhaps then the evil curse of ruinous violence which has settled down over this land because of the Supreme Court ruling could lift and America would once more regain its historical, societal and cultural footing.
Then perhaps the Justices could start undoing the awful wrong that the Court has loosed on American civilization. The great sin of Court sanctioned murder – “Abortion” -- could be lifted from the nation by America’s citizens declaring Roe v. Wade nu
If this summer’s actions by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reclassify same sex marriage as a civil right, the homosexual lifestyle will become the norm for American civilization, in spite of the fact that for thousands of years marriage has traditionally been only between a man and a woman. In 1987 Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said, ”Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they had an inalienable right to be gay.”
This reclassification may work for a small minority of people, but it won’t work for society as a whole. If it were such a great idea, America’s citizens would be able to freely participate in the gay life style without doing harm to themselves and to society. When a court is most convinced that it is doing well is when it is most susceptible to be doing harm. Someone who prefers to live the same sex lifestyle is not just an American who wants to be treated like everyone else. Homosexuals want to fundamentally change American society and the heterosexual way of life. Evil is more than ignorance.
If every American adopted this kind of lifestyle, a hundred years from now America would cease to exist, because during that period no children would be born. Should SCOTUS actually declare homosexuality a civil right, it logically follows that polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality would one day also be declared a civil right by the Court. In spite of society’s thirst for more modernism, inclusiveness and diversity, who would want to live in the midst of such moral depravity?
From where do our laws and rights emanate? The Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, explains the origin of our rights as the Nation’s Founders believed them to be, “…to assume…the separate and equal Station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
Then our Founder’s declared, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Our great nation’s Founders assumed that our divine, God given rights transcend the rights of government, that these rights are entitlements bestowed upon mankind by the author of history and the distributor of Divine Law, that is, by God himself. Our forefathers clearly stated that they believed man’s unalienable rights came from this God, and that man inherited them at birth.
In the view of the community and the American culture in which I was born and grew up, homosexuality is an evil, a sin, and an abomination. Participating in it is not a right, and we should not approve of it just because some people want to involve themselves in it. Homosexuals are not just Americans who want to be treated like everyone else. The aim of their assault on the traditional American family is to fully change and corrupt the existing American society and the American family.
Just because an adult thinks he has fallen in love with his teenage son or daughter; or a six year old thinks he or she has fallen in love with another six year old child, is not reason enough or sufficient justification enough for society to sanction their being united in marriage. Traditionally this foul way of life has been, and in my judgment should continue to be, unacceptable to American civilization.
This is not just about SCOTUS endorsing same sex marriage; it is about creating families, about connecting with the human race; it is about providing children with a father and mother image that they can emulate, and having parents that can mentor them. A family is more than a piece of paper saying two people are legally connected.
Our society and culture should not bless the homosexual life style just so a child can have two or more supposedly loving mothers or fathers. Because someone thinks they have fallen in love with a horse or a pet snake does not mean that they should be allowed to legally marry those animals with society’s blessing.
At the settling of an estate, just because an animal is mentioned in a will does not mean that that animal should be awarded a collection of Picasso paintings, a bank account, or a Bentley. For, over time, that is where all this leads.
And once SCOTUS throws wide open society’s homosexual doors, it will be impossible to get the animals back into the barn, let alone back into the stall. Even worse, the lawyers will have a litigating field day. It is impossible to imagine how much fun lawyers will have and how creative they will become arguing cases under such a Supreme Court ruling.
According to our Founders, citizen’s rights transcend government rights; they are entitlements bestowed upon mankind at birth by a just God, the author of history and the Creator of divine law. That same God bestows upon mankind certain unalienable rights. Our government is crafted and designed to protect those rights, not just to exploit and enjoy the freedoms they provide.
In its deliberations and decisions concerning whether the Constitution permits citizens to openly flaunt the gay life style, SCOTUS should be guided by the natural law and moral code given to us by our Creator, the God of our founding.
In a society, without a moral basis for its actions and beliefs, any and everything is permissible, including the concocting of evil intrigues and abominable life styles.