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.
In 2011 more than 30,000 people died from gun injuries in the United States. America seems to have a fascination with violence which has crept into all aspects of our everyday life and has spawned a culture of violence. As a nation, we seem to have lost our societal bearings, our sense of what is right and acceptable compared to what is wrong and unacceptable. We have developed a culture of personal and collective violence. It is easy to blame this change on things which are inert such as assault rifles which, if left to their own devices, are harmless.
It is not an assault rifle problem or the size of a gun clip that is the problem. Violence has become a failed societal cultural problem. Once human life was safeguarded in America and treated as sacred, was respected and honored. 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 “commonplace” category. Why? Because that was where American society and the Supreme Court of the United States willed it to be.
That day murder became matter-of-fact. Societal pressure took it out of the “Thou shalt not” category of the Ten Commandments and grouped it together with lesser things. To be sure this grouping was disapproved of by many American citizens, but not enough of them to force society to reject this new attitude toward murder.
Through the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court consecrated the “word change;” and American civilization started fatally decaying the very day, hour and minute that Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.
At the time of its adoption, arguments in its favor seemed to make at least a little sense -- very little. Unborn babies were declared to be property, part of a woman’s body; and women were given the right to dispose of their property in any way they saw fit, much like the Dred Scott decision. The Court decided that only the pregnant woman herself could legally decide whether or not to terminate the life of her unborn property.
Since then DNA has been discovered; and DNA proves beyond all doubt that an unborn baby is in no way part of the mother’s body. Therefore, the unborn child is not property of the mother and the mother has no legal rights over the body of the unborn baby. So the mother cannot legally decide whether or not to abort her unborn child.
Back in 1973 the Supreme Court changed the word “murder” to a less offensive word, to the word “abortion.” Since then the word murder had been considered to be evil; and the word abortion has been considered to be good.
According to the Bible, the judges who originally decided Roe v. Wade and those who continue to sustain that decision will burn in Hell for eternity. For abortion is nothing more than Court sanctioned and legalized murder. If society won’t safeguard a child’s life within the sanctity, safety and security of a mother’s womb, it probably will not 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 such open, sometimes violent debate 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 that it is a wrong decision. Therefore, the Court may one day be forced, by the American people, to reverse and overrule the Roe v. Wade decision.
If 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 getting America’s Catholic Supreme Court members in line with the church’s teachings.
Then perhaps the Justices could start undoing the awful wrong the Court has perpetrated on our civilization. It is time the great sin of Court sanctioned murder, which is called abortion, was lifted from the nation by declaring the Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision null and void.
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 violence which has settled down over this land could be lifted and America will once more regain its historical, societal and cultural footing.
Many of our military personnel stationed overseas do not successfully vote in presidential elections; or when they do vote their ballots don’t count. It is criminal that the President and the Pentagon can arrange for our troops to die in the service of their country, but can’t arrange for those same troops to vote.
The Department of Defense could have ballots printed and flown to our troops all our bases all over the world, have them filled out by the troops, sort the ballots out, fly them back to the U.S., and then have them deposited at voting drop off sites with plenty of time to spare. If legislation is needed to make this procedure legal and lawful, then let the President so inform the Congress and it will be done.
“So, why aren’t soldiers voting? In many cases they simply can’t, and they have their commander in chief, President Obama to blame,” asserts American Majority Action CEO Ned Ryan writing in the Washington Times. Since most military service men and women are by nature conservative, they tend to vote Republican. The President and the Secretary of Defense are Democrats and they may not be as keen as they could be to see that our troops exercise the right to vote.
But Obama and the Secretary of Defense are only a small part of the problem. The Generals and Admirals running the Pentagon could easily arrange for every overseas military soldier, sailor and airman on active duty worldwide to vote. Of course this assumes that exercising the soldier’s right to vote is a high priority within the Pentagon bureaucracy. If there isn’t a high level of interest, a simple nod of the head by the Secretary could fix the problem.
Currently the Obama Administration counters our troops failure to vote by pointing out that fiscal problems, including the Sequestration and a shortage of funds, makes it impossible to properly implement the military voting program as well as the President would like. The problem is really not just a shortage of funds; it is also a shortage of will power and little concern for our troops being able to exercise their constitutional right to vote. We know that many in the Obama Administration may not be too eager to encourage military troops to vote. So, some of the bureaucrats in the Pentagon will not protest overly much if somehow the overseas voting program doesn’t catch fire and if the troops are “accidently” shut out of exercising their constitutional voting rights.
At the same time, these very same people make it appear that they are trying hard to get things working properly, but normal bureaucratic snafus are making carrying out overseas troop voting procedures very difficult. So, it is up to the Generals and Admirals to see to it that all our troops are given the opportunity to vote, even if that includes asking Congress to pass additional legislation or to obtain the cooperation of the States.
In 2009 Congress passed the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act which was supposed to facilitate military voting overseas, by opening a voter assistance office at every military installation. So the Generals and Admirals don’t need the President or the Secretary of Defense’s permission for their troops to vote, they just need to wake up and implement existing legislation -- with energy.
No doubt in passing this legislation Congress thought they had fixed the problem. But clearly that was not the case. The fault for troops being denied the right to vote today is on the shoulders of the Generals and Admirals. If they can get food delivered to our troops worldwide, they can also get ballots printed and delivered worldwide to the same troops. Getting them cast and delivered back to the U.S. for counting should be no big deal.
So, why aren’t more of our overseas troops voting? They can’t because in many cases the apparatus for our soldiers to cast their votes, though authorized, is not in place and functioning. Where it is in place, sometimes it isn’t operating properly or ballots arrive too late to meet overseas voting deadlines or for some reason or other their ballots don’t count. This is the kind of problem the Pentagon loves to fix.
According to the Election Assistance Commission, in 2008 there were over a million overseas military voters with too many Generals and Admirals asleep at the ballot box, or perhaps they just failed to make voting a priority within their commands. Then, only 4.6 percent of our overseas servicemen and women were able to cast absentee ballots -- that counted. In the future the Generals and Admirals need to do a little better.
Capitol Hill lawmakers on opposite sides of the political aisle in Washington agree about very little these days, but there is something on which both sides do seem to agree. It is that more than $46 billion in drastic, automatic defense budget cuts will hit the Pentagon over the next seven months. This is called sequestration and when sequestration does takes effect, it will “supposedly” have devastating effects on military preparedness and our armed forces ability to execute combat operations.
Of course this presupposes that there really is a shortage of funding. But there appears to be so much excess money looking for a place to be spent that President Obama is able to build a civilian duplicate of the Department of Defense and place it under the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security. On the one hand the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Senate Armed Service Committee say implementing sequestration will destroy our armed forces. On the other hand President Obama says his intention is – that the nation can afford-- to build a civilian duplicate of the Department of Defense, one that is large and well-funded.
He calls this his “Civilian National Security Force (CNSF), “ and he promises that it will be as well armed, well equipped, and well trained as the U.S. Army, the Marines, Navy and Air Force combined. Currently this civilian army is being organized and trained at bases all over the country. Who is paying the CNSF bills and why can’t that money be used to pay the bills of our military and thus avoid the need for sequestration?
The Examiner reported last summer that, “multiple agencies of the federal government have ordered and are stockpiling multimillions of rounds of ammunition (http://www.examiner.com/article/more-federal -agencies-buy-multithousands-of-rounds-of-ammo) have pressured the feds to offer an explanation. But the official explanation has only raised more questions.” In fact, this year orders for additional millions of rounds of ammunition have again been placed by DHS and other government departments...
Last month, J. Farah of the World Net Daily quoted Obama as saying during the 2008 Presidential campaign, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” What are these national security objectives that Obama has set for his CNSF? Certainly he can’t be serious when he says that he wants a civilian duplicate of the DOD? Did he misspeak? His four year track record as president suggests he was deadly serious when he said it and if Congress objects, he will issue an executive order and work around the intent of Congress, and no one will object.
If the government has really run out of sufficient money to support routine military operations, which sequestration says it has, where is the money coming from to create a civilian department of defense? Why not take the funds the CNSF is currently spending and use it to pay the Pentagon’s bills? Or is there something else going on here? I am not one much given to conspiracy theories but like most Americans am not easily fooled either.
The next time the Senate Armed Services Committee grapples with the question of sequestration, perhaps it would also be appropriate to grapple with questions concerning Obama’s CNSF such as how large a force is it? How and with what is it equipped? What is its budget? If we can’t currently afford to refuel and replenish U.S. Navy’s ships, how can we afford to build and equip a new civilian navy?
Does it make any sense that at the same time we are gutting -- sequestering -- our armed forces we are simultaneously building up a civilian version of the Pentagon that will be, according to President Obama, the same size as the Pentagon’s military forces? When are our Senators and Congressmen going to stand up, face the cameras and ask some of these questions? Since we can’t afford two Pentagons, why haven’t the military functions of the Department of Homeland Security been terminated, disbanded, and, along with their budget, assigned to the Department of Defense. Or, why hasn’t DOD been terminated and its functions assigned to DHS or to Obama’s CNSF?
Democrat Congressmen and Senators can’t continue to rely on their Republican counterparts to do all their dirty work and heavy lifting. The American people do not just hold President Obama responsible for the actions of the Administration. There will be a Congressional election in 2014 and, like as happened in 2010, there may be a full scale adjustment of those who occupy the chairs on Capitol Hill.
Perhaps we need a sequestration of people as opposed to just a sequestration of funds.
Author of: From Private to General: An African American Soldier Works His Way Up Through The Ranks; The Dream Continues: Thoughts From An American Journey; 2007 Bronze Award for “Multicultural Non-Fiction From Independent Publisher (IPPY Awards).
Let us put some things in perspective. It is easy to look at present day events and forget that this nation has, since its founding, successfully faced the impossible and the unsolvable. President Washington walked where no man had walked before and through prayer and determination turned thirteen disparate colonies into a great nation. Lincoln became President just as the nation fell apart and put it back together. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) picked up the mantel of the nation’s government in the middle of The Great World Depression.
At the time FDR was being told by nearly everyone that the job of President was too hard and that the waters were so troubled that it was impossible to lead the nation to safety. But FDR brushed all that aside and told the American people, “This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper… Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously.”
Were the wheel chair bound FDR here today, he would throw the burdens of the nation across his broad shoulders, including fiscal difficulties, and say that the future cannot be turned over to an impotent Congress and President. It must thrust into the strong hands of an FDR or a Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), men who knew how to lift our citizens and their way of life to new levels of accomplishment, men who refuse to flounder in the swamp of sequestration.
That is what MLK was talking about in his “I Have a Dream” speech when he said, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must ever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline … let us not wallow in the valley of despair.”
This is the kind of leadership our country needs today. So let us focus on conquering the hard things, on growing the American dream and not wasting our time on the easy things, like securing our southern border. To secure the border the President need only tell the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that, “This is a matter of national defense and security. You have ninety days to secure our southern border.” In ninety days the border would be secured. The Russians and East Germans secured 96 miles of the Berlin border overnight.
In this country most gun killing is black on black, Why? Are the guns and ammunition used in black communities more lethal than those used in white communities? No, gun violence does not kill; it is the culture in our communities that kills, the lack of MLK type leadership at all levels, a paucity of cultural, ethical and spiritual standards of conduct. If we want to stop people from being killed we have to change more than the make and caliber of a gun or the size of its ammo clip. We must change the attitude of society toward killing innocent people and toward our community culture in general. Today Administration actions seem only directed toward control of guns, ammunition, and their owners, not reducing crime.
Guns are neither evil nor violent. Those of us who have spent time on the battlefield getting shot at have made peace with our guns. In fact if you get shot at enough and live through the experience, your gun becomes a friend and you learn to be thankful for the peace, safety and tranquility that it brings.
Which of our leaders today champions scaling the lofty heights of MLK’s “I have a dream” speech. It is the Presidents job to lift our national culture up to the mountain top where MLK and President Ronald Reagan lived their lives. As MLK said, “We refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation … In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds.” Today we are once again desperately in need of FDR’s and MLK’s kind of leadership; for we have lost track of the nation’s purpose and its acceptable standards of cultural and ethical conduct.
The assassination of MLK was the beginning of the disintegration of the Black family. No one, white or black, stepped in to fill the gap left by his untimely departure. The dream of a seamless White and Black America died with him and the nation hasn’t been the same since. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharpton’s who throughout all these years have pretended to be filling MLK’s shoes, can’t. They have no vision for themselves let alone for America.
The schools that exist in the most dangerous of environments are the schools in the nation of Israel which are subject to terrorist attack at any time. As best I can determine, all these schools have fences around them and are protected by metal detectors. Access to schools is strictly controlled and teachers, staff, workers and students carry picture IDs. In addition, visitors are required to sign in and out. All schools have safety guards and teachers who want to carry concealed hand guns do so.
There is no way of knowing what is really going on in Washington’s corridors of power concerning stopping or modifying the supposed culture of gun violence in our communities. But indications are that the Obama Administration is desperately trying to find a way to circumvent the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” is to protect the 1st and other Amendments, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
For the last few years the administrative departments of the federal government such as the Social Security Administration, are buying up enormous amounts of ammunition, so much so that the ammunition manufacturers can barely keep up with their orders. Investor’s Business Daily writes that in the last year the government has purchased nearly two billion rounds of ammunition, enough to fight 24 years of the Gulf War. Eventually, if this rate of purchase continues, it will be impossible for private citizens to buy ammunition, since this is a simple way for the government to confiscate ammunition that is in the hands of private citizens.
At the same time, “The Freedom Group” has been aggressively purchasing arms and ammunition manufacturing companies. If the trend continues, guns and ammunition sales to private citizens may be controlled more and more by the federal government, or by a company that works in close coordination with the federal government.
In the meantime public attention is being diverted toward secondary subjects like sequestration and exceeding fiscal spending limits, when the real danger is a failure to deal with entitlements and the Administration’s skirting of the 2nd Amendment and other parts of the Constitution.
Should the government control the manufacturing and sales of guns and ammunition, it will have successfully subverted the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Attempted federal government power grabs like these are not new. What is new is having the federal government collude with the private sector to blatantly circumvent the Constitution for evil purposes.
But the American people are not easily fooled. If it turns out to be that the government is encouraging private manufacturing companies to buy up guns and ammunition to keep them out of the hands of ”We the People,” the people will strenuously object.
First, a little definition: just because a candidate is a conservative or a Tea Partier does not make him far-right, nor does it mean that he is too flawed to be a serious candidate. On the other hand having a penchant to say stupid things may disqualify a candidate. Being wrong is only skin deep but stupid cuts clear to the bone.
It is not for the party to tell fellow Republicans to run or not to run for political office; the party should not be in the incumbent protection business, nor encouraging the voters to back candidates who will obviously lose in the general election just because they are the establishment’s candidate.
The basic guideline should be taken from President Reagan’s, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” This should be followed by the Buckley rule, “Support the most conservative candidate who can win.”
What little excitement there is in the Republican Party these days seems to be generated by the youngsters of the Conservative and Tea Party wings. The common belief held by mainstream Republicans is that the Conservatives and Tea Partiers are too right wing radical to draw votes away from the center and the Democrat Party, especially from Black and Hispanic voters.
But Republican principles have always been conservative not moderate, not moderately conservative nor center. It is a catch 22 situation. If a Republican seems politically far enough to the right to engender political excitement, he is considered too right wing radical to appeal to the center and, thus, be elected. Supposedly, if he is middle of the road enough to attract votes from moderate democrats, his hard core Republican base will flee from him, which is not true.
There is also an ethnic and racial component. It is assumed that if a voter is Hispanic, he or she will vote Democrat because the Democrats are willing to exchange votes and political power for the right of Hispanics to illegally immigrate to and reside in the United States. Generally speaking, there is no way Republicans can compete with the Democrats who are surrendering our nation’s heritage and political rights just in order to win over the illegal immigrant voting bloc.
Yet, it is possible to chip away at the edges. Hispanic immigrants know that their blackmailing of the Democrat Party is both wrong and illegal. Fortunately some of them already vote their consciences. Voters who think like them are the ones the Republican Party has to persuade that doing the right, legal and honest thing is more important than personal gain. This is a hard sell, but not impossible. Can those who criminally entered the United States be trusted to obey our laws as if they entered the country legally? Adhering to the rule of law is always difficult.
Part of putting together a successful program to attract Hispanic voters is having passionate and dynamic Hispanic leaders as part of both the top circle of the Republican National Committee (RNC), and the state parties, more than just being Hispanic figureheads. In a perfect world Senator Marco Rubio would be the ideal person to head up the RNC. But he is too important where he is now, helping provide Republican Hispanic leadership in the US Senate. Perhaps Rubio has a suggestion as to which Hispanics would make good members of the state parties and RNC inner circle.
But even if he came up with someone more perfect than himself to run the RNC, it would be a mistake to put that person in the job, because there is also a racial component to the Republican problem that must be satisfied. Just as there has never been an Hispanic Chairman of the RNC, there has only been one Black Chairman.
If the Republican Party’s aim is to cater to an RNC made up of and controlled by white males, then all is well. If the purpose is to have the RNC represent all Americans of every racial and ethnic shade, hue, color, and political persuasion, then the Party is going about it the wrong way. Today the average Republican voter could not tell you the name of the RNC Chairman under the pain of death, even if he was standing right in front of him.
To be successful the RNC needs to take on President Obama head on, go for his juggler every time he plays the race card. Only a Black American can side step racist Democrat allegations, and counter Obama’s racist charges with the deadly force required to defeat Obama and his minions, and win elections. Whether or not the RNC is run by someone Hispanic or Black, will be meaningless if the inner circle calling the shots is made up only of white males. Those controlling the RNC, in addition to being white males, also need to be Black, Hispanic, Asian and comfortable living in mixed racial and ethnic families.
The next component with which the Republican Partly has to deal is the so-called “war on women,” which is a bald faced lie. The record shows that Republicans have supported the advancement of women at every opportunity. In order to refute such falsehoods and be successful in representing American women and minorities, the inner circle of the RNC should not be race or gender exclusive, but should represent the demography of the population at large.
Republicans don’t need a moderate or a conservative to be the RNC Chairman. What they desperately need is a leader who can inspire the party to action. General Patton was often criticized for his politically incorrect views but whenever Eisenhower needed a victory, such as at the Battle of the Bulge, he sent for Patton and Patton delivered. Right now the Republicans need a Patton.
The personal beliefs of the RNC Chairman and the party spokesmen are not the issue. They are supposed to represent and speak for the party, not for their personal beliefs. What is most relevant is whether they have a fire raging deep within them. Can the current RNC leaders guide the party to future victories? Have they won any victories lately? The Republican Party doesn’t need leaders who can please and satisfy all colors of political persuasion, but can’t win. There is a difference.
Contrary to what the current RNC leadership thinks, the Republican rank and file believe that it is possible to reach out to new groups without alienating the old ones. What is missing in the Republican Party today is an injection of a good strong dose of dynamic, charismatic leadership. At Republican meetings when the speaker finishes speaking, are the listeners galvanized into action or are they bored? Republicans long for a return to the days when there were Patrick Henrys shouting from the rear of the hall, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death?”
These days whenever there is excitement at Republican meetings, it is usually provided by Tea Partiers or by what many consider to be radical conservatives. Perhaps if the Republican Party had more fired up radical conservatives, women, Blacks, Hispanics, or Tea Partiers in high level leadership positions the Party would be revitalized and have more life and energy. A stiff dose of digital steroids will help, but it cannot replace leadership. The Republican Party needs more of both.
Perhaps then, Republicans could continue championing their conservative principles, avoid alienating moderates, have their cake, and eat it too.
The mission of the nation’s armed forces is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. To succeed our armed forces must be effectively trained and prepared to fight and win wars. Success in war is a question of military effectiveness, not political correctness.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s unfortunate announcement last week that he has approved assigning women to military front line combat units is about diversity and women rising to positions of high military leadership, not about military effectiveness. If Secretary Panetta thought that assigning women to combat would have increased the nation’s military effectiveness he would have done it when he first became Secretary of Defense. Then he could have seen the policy through to its implementation, not just pass it off onto his replacement secretary for execution.
Some years ago when I was the Chief of Staff of a U.S. Army Corps in Germany, we received a communication from the Pentagon saying that the decision had been made to assign women to military combat units down to regimental level. It also alerted us that our first contingent of women would arrive in about three weeks.
The next day at the morning staff meeting I told the Corps Commander about the communication and asked whether he had any particular guidance for the staff in its development of a policy to integrate women into corps combat units? He thought for a few minutes then in jest said, “Yes, throw the women into the open showers with the men. Those who manage to fight their way out alive, keep. Ship the others back to the Pentagon.”
Of course his offhand, meant to be humorous comments in no way represented actual army or corps policy. In fact, the integration of women into our regimental level combat units went smoothly and those problem which did develop, which were many, were handled skillfully and professionally. The women performed their peace time duties as well as our male soldiers.
But the Commander’s words did have a ring of truth to them. Woman shouldn’t and couldn’t -- then and now -- be expected to live up to male physical conditioning standards. Imagine women assigned to combat outpost duty in Afghanistan. Imagine what would happen to them if they were captured by Al-Queda or Muslim extremists and gang raped over and over and over again. The women who lived through such a horrifying experience could be mentally and emotionally crippled for life. And those in the White House and Pentagon who were responsible for exposing them to such horror should be taken out and shot.
Any nation that assigns women to fight on the front lines of its military forces is doomed to be defeated in battle. It is like women playing in the “Superbowl.” How long do you think the physically best of woman would hold up against the constant pounding of a 350 pound NFL lineman? One play, two, maybe three?
Why in the name of all that is holy are the Pentagon’s Generals and Admirals sanctioning the assignment of women to front line military combat units? We know the White House is proposing it for the same reason it is supporting illegal immigration, to score political points and amass election votes with Hispanics. But for the life of me I don’t understand the silence coming out of the Pentagon.
If a commander really cared about the safety of his or her troops and is honestly looking out for their welfare, he or she will oppose Panetta’s ill-advised decision at all costs. The generals and admirals should fight to the death the idea of assigning woman to front line combat units. On any given day a male army will decisively defeat a female army again, again, and again. An NFL team made up of the best and most physically conditioned women in the nation will be soundly whipped by the worst male team in the league.
What a cowardly -- or is the word stupid -- nation we have become, to believe that we can successfully use women to fight our nation’s battles and wars. Do we really want to see America’s women, wives, and mothers beheaded and their naked bodies drug through the streets of some middle-eastern hell hole of a nation, for that is exactly what will eventually happen. Were Patrick Henry of Virginia here he would scream, “Forbid it almighty God!”
But he is not here and our generals and admirals are either unwilling or have been cowed into not speaking out in opposition to this insanity. Once again it comes down to “We The People” having to step up and shout, “No-No-No, American women should not be forced to serve in front line military combat units! Diversity is not the same as military necessity. Men were physically created to fight wars, not women.”
On April 19, 1775, a British Expeditionary Force set out to capture and destroy guns and ammunition believed stored by American Colonists at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. To counter the British action the American Colonists mobilized their militias and using guns kept in their houses, defeated the British forces and forced them to retreat back to Boston.
The British believed it was perfectly acceptable for the government to be armed, but that private citizens should not be armed because they might challenge the actions of the British Government. So they thought it reasonable for the British to confiscate the colonist’s guns and ammunition. On the other hand the colonists believed that private citizens should have access to firearms to defend themselves in case the government became too tyrannical.
It seems we have forgotten the lesson that the colonists fought the Battles of Lexington and Concord to prevent the British Government from disarming the American Colonists. The colonists’ intent was that never again would only the government have access to guns and ammunition and the American people be stripped naked of the right to own and bear arms and left without the means to protect themselves and their interests. Now that same specter rises once again and threatens the freedom of the
American people, and once more the government is making an all-out effort to seize the guns and ammunition of America’s private citizens.
The British attempt to disarm the colonists is one of the actions that led to the Revolutionary War and, later on, to the adoption of the Second Amendment which reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Are the Congress and the President now fomenting another revolution? They seem to have forgotten that the clear purpose of the Second Amendment is not to restrict the private citizen’s ownership of guns and ammunition, but to restrict the possible tyranny of the central government.
The subject of discussion today in Washington and throughout the nation is, “Shall the American people have the right to bear arms and protect their interests, or will the government be able to circumvent or abrogate the constitution and force the governments will upon the American people in violation of our founding documents and principles?”
Of course this is all done under the subterfuge of being helpful and protective of our citizens. Those politicians in charge of finding a way to reduce gun violence speak of the efficacy of curbing it, of making video games less violent, closing loop holes that allow unqualified gun and ammunition purchases, eliminating high-capacity rifles and magazines, keeping guns away from the mentally disturbed, more use of metal detectors, and on and on it goes.
But we citizens aren’t so easily fooled. We recognize that we are fighting the battle of Lexington and Concord all over again. It is not a question of a culture of violence taking over our society, or of whether or not a single-shot rifle is more violent than a semi-automatic firearm. They are equally violent.
It is a constitutional issue, not just one of gun violence, or of semi-automatic versus fully automatic, or small versus large magazines of ammunition. Gun and ammunition ownership rights, among others, are what our Founding Fathers fought and died for at Lexington and Concord, they fought for the constitutional right to bear arms and to limit the paternalism of government. Do Americans today have the constitutional right to own and store guns and ammunition? The answer is the same as it was back in colonial days.
Actions by political leaders in the Congress and the White House indicate that they do not trust the people of America with guns, so restricting private gun ownership must be good and restricting the government’s firearms ownership must be bad. That is, the people of America cannot be trusted to own and handle guns and ammo. However, the government which shamelessly forced American Indians to walk down the Trail of Tears, and rejoiced over the Dred Scott Decision, supposedly can be trusted to regulate guns and ammunition.
Someone suggested that school teachers should have the right to be armed and licensed if they so choose. This makes sense in spite of all the derogatory comments to the contrary. Ask the teachers and see how they feel about it. And we don’t need a separate governmental agency to implement the arming of school teachers. Their training and arming could be done voluntarily, at the local level.
Today, the Second Amendment means exactly what our Founding Fathers thought it meant in colonial times, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”