Category Archives: Politics

June 5, 2013 · 9:13 am

Obama’s Women: The cackling hens have come home to roost……

This morning brings the true radical agenda of Obama into clear view.  In fact, the mainstream media will need to dig much faster and deeper to bury the true extent of this administration’s  far left lunacy with today’s news that Susan Rice will become the new National Security Adviser, in the wake of Tom Donilon announcing his resignation (story here).  Since this position does not require Senate confirmation, President Obama, once again thumbed his nose at the American people.  Who cares that he sent Susan Rice out to lie to the American people about Benghazi?

And to complete the far-left turn in President Obama’s foreign policy trajectory comes Samantha Power, the relentless humanitarian interventionist, who has no respect for the US military, but wants to use them as her personal tool to wield her lofty, unbelievably naive strategy to end genocide in the world. (here)  Power advocates some principle she calls “the responsibility to protect”, to prod the US to intervene all over the world to stop “genocide’  (a term which definitely is in the eye of the beholder in most of these racial and ethnic squabbles).  She’s all for American unilateral military intervention on her terms and for the trendy causes that left-wing academics embrace. (American Thinker piece on her views here) She knows absolutely nothing about military matters, but that never has stopped any of these tough-talking, leftist ideologues from wanting to use the US military for their political  adventures.

As I stated in a previous post, only when the world’s major powers can act in unison and form a united front, should we intervene in these messy third-world situations, where we have no clear national security objectives.    Going it alone leads to mission creep and puts our troops in situations with murky, ill-defined military objectives and unnecessarily costs American lives.  For this administration the loss of American lives doesn’t count – this President with these pushy women prodding him, continues to lie about Benghazi, authorizes drone strikes killing American citizens with no outside oversight, and now has promoted two of the most ideologically left women to complete his second term foreign policy team.   So, let’s not act surprised when President Obama decides to ratchet up US support for the Syrian rebels or if he starts using the US military for more military adventurism in the Middle East.  With these two women tightening their apron strings around this indecisive waffler-in chief, don’t be surprised if Samantha borrows from her husband’s theories and turns those Sunstein “nudges” into “shoves”, as she tries to subvert American law to the will of her international legal remedies for the world’s humanitarian problems.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Military, Politics

June 4, 2013 · 11:38 pm

Military leadership 101: Set the standard

Politicizing the military chain of command continued full-throttle with today’s Senate Armed Forces Committee grilling of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the recent spate of high-profile sexual assault cases.  (Reuters report here).  The most idiotic comment came from Senator Kristen Gillibrand, from New York, who stated, ““Not every commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and rape.”   The political solution that Gillibrand proposes adds a layer of bureaucracy between commanders and their troops – a special third-party entity to handle sexual harassment and sexual assault issues.  This will further erode trust between soldiers and their chain of command.  This smells like one more effort to turn the military into a politicized social engineering project of the left-wing politicos.  

As a female in the Army decades ago (circa 1980), I was sent to a Pershing missile unit, as I’ve mentioned before.  My battalion had less than 100 women and around 1,ooo men.  The Army back then had a pretty bad drug problem in Europe too, so things were a little rough.  Since this in my blog, I’m going to speak the truth.  I love the Army and I learned so many important lessons that have carried me through life and truly taught me how to face challenges head-on.  The integration of women into the military rates as a mixed bag of results.  One of my sisters completed a very successful career in the Air Force and she never experienced anything remotely what I did when I arrived to my Pershing unit.  Each service grappled with how to integrate women into the ranks amidst a great deal of politicized decision-making , where actual military excellence has always taken a backseat to the feminist-driven objectives.   Many women do excel in the military and certainly our military benefits from having as many of our best and brightest young people serving in uniform, so I’m not against women in the military.  What I’m going to say, is my opinion, based on my own personal experiences and observations – not some poll or what someone else said.  I’m going to speak about the real life problems that persist by integration being about politics, not what’s best for the mission or the soldiers.  It’s the real life proverbial elephant in the middle of the room that no male soldier dare speak about

In an earlier post I sort of tongue-in-cheek referred to my experiences in a battalion with so many men and so few women as the best diversionary tactics training in the world and you know what, it really was!  The minute I arrived at my battery, men started swarming around me and I guess the most accurate description would be, they were talking a lot of shit.  Yes, men talk a lot of shit, that’s a fact.  A young man grabbed my arm and I grabbed him by his shirt and slammed him against the wall and told him, “Don’t touch me!”   The other guys started laughing and talking more shit, but not a single one of them ever touched me again and the one who did grab my arm became a friend.  A female sergeant walked me down the sidewalk, past the next battery and on to the end of the parade field (those German kasernes usually have central parade field with the barracks arranged around the perimeter) .  The men were hanging out of the windows screaming vulgar things at me and the female sergeant told me not to look up and to just keep walking.  We went and retrieved my TA50 (field gear) and then she marched me back to my battery.  I was very scared my first few weeks there.

I have always felt thankful I was assigned to a battery with a good battery commander and an outstanding first sergeant.  My first sergeant (in the Army he’s called Top) was a Special Forces Vietnam vet, who taught me how to be a soldier.  The first time I met him, I was standing in front of his desk and he asked me where I was from and he looked me up and down and said, “Young lady, you don’t belong here!”  He was at a loss with how to deal with women, but he assigned us tasks, just like the men, and one thing I learned very quickly with him was if you worked hard and did what you were supposed to, he made sure to praise your efforts.  After several months there, some commander decided they should have a female M60 gunner to impress the NATO evaluators who observed many of our field training exercises.  Top picked me to be a machine gunner.  And the morning he told me that  I was going to become a machine gunner, this cocky infantry sergeant (Mr Hotshot 82nd paratrooper) said, “Top, girls can’t be machine gunners!”  Top told him, “Sergeant, you’re going to train her!”  So, I became a machine gunner and that sergeant took me to the range and as many times as I said, “I can’t do this” and I told him, “I’m scared of guns!”  He told me, “the mind controls the body, the body does not control the mind!”  Well, I learned.  Top made sure I learned a lot of other stuff when we went to the field too and to this day, I rank him as one of a handful of men whom I respect the most.  That cocky sergeant later became my husband.

Now, what kind of stuff happens when you’ve got so few young women and so many men – lots of drama and the men would make comments about why most of these women were pregnant and the rest were lesbians, totally oblivious to their roles in events.  Here’s another thing that seems to be part of the male mindset – they divide women into categories and treat them accordingly.  I behaved like a lady and was treated respectfully.  Once a few men determined I was a “nice little country girl”,  they insured other men treated me respectfully.  Men do some sort of internal policing from what I observed.  A typical occurrence would be some man would say something vulgar to me and other men would jump in and tell him that he couldn’t talk to me like that.  I quickly had many men “protecting” me and I felt safe almost anywhere on post.   I observed that many young women arrived there and went to the club and got into bad situations quickly, because men perceived them to be sluts.  Men really do divide women into groups.   One friend of mine was a young woman, who arrived at the same time I did, and she got involved in a few abusive relationships with men and after several months, she joined what I referred to as the “lesbian alliance” – it sure seemed more like a safe sex group from my viewpoint than it seemed to be about some heartfelt “sexual orientation”.  I asked this young woman why she decided to become a lesbian and she told me about her bad experiences with men and how this was safe sex and she didn’t have to worry about being beat up.

Army experiences can vary even in the same battalion and the biggest difference is in the quality of your chain of command.  I felt very fortunate to be in a battery with good order and discipline.  The friend mentioned in the previous paragraph ended up in a battery where there seemed to be little order or discipline and we had a couple of batteries like that in our battalion – in fact, I dreaded even walking into those batteries in broad daylight and going to the orderly room for official  business.  I sure wouldn’t have walked in there after duty hours.  I had another female friend who lived in a battery where the standards weren’t like in my battery.  Top had the female soldiers on the first floor with a female CQ at our end of the hallway and there was a male CQ down by the orderly room.  I felt safe in my room.  Now, this female friend, her first sergeant stuck the women on the top floor with only an unlocked door and a female CQ sitting there.  I walked up to her room only one time by myself and after that I always had a male friend with me.  You don’t ever want to get cornered on a stairwell.   My female friend who lived there was barely 5 feet tall and I bet she didn’t even weigh 100 lbs and she had to walk up that stairwell several times a day and sleep knowing only one female soldier was guarding her from a battery of men (many who used drugs and got drunk frequently).  As an aside, most of the females I met were from blue-collar or below backgrounds.  They weren’t the Hillary Clinton “experts” on women’s issues, but their very personal safety was impacted by these feminist harpies, who continue to push their idiotic feminist agenda on the military.

We had an old school battalion commander and since my public affairs job had me in close contact with the command group, I got to know the entire command group well.  My battalion commander took me along with him for many German/American events and he treated his driver and me fantastic.  He spoke fluent German,  could explain German history as well as he could military history and I loved listening to him explain things.  I had a battalion executive officer, who was a whiz at explaining how Pershing missiles actually worked and he could explain our entire nuclear posture in simple terms, where it all made sense.  I liked talking to him too.  My battalion commander nicknamed me, Fraulein Wunderbar, and he hadn’t quite grasped the female soldier thing.  He always stood up when I walked in his office and one time he had some young officers in there and he told them, “you stand up when a lady enters the room!”.  He made one of them give me his seat.  One time I had to travel with him to a Combat Alert Site, where the firing battery had been there a long time.  He had his driver stop at a nearby village and he bought us dinner in a nice German guesthouse.  When we were ready to leave he handed me over to a German lady and he told me that I was staying in this German guesthouse for the night and he would have his driver pick me up in the morning.  I told him I would be fine at the CAS site and he said, “I wouldn’t dream of having you stay there, those men have been out there for 3 months!”  He treated me like he would treat his daughter.  However, the gap in this is each of those firing batteries had a handful or so of female soldiers, so one can only imagine how they fared.  I can say that I never saw any female soldiers who were physically strong enough to be a Pershing missile crewman, but the Army had them.

I learned to handle a machine gun, but was I strong enough, if I had to pick up that machine gun and move quickly with it – hell, no!.  Yet, I could max the female PT test.  Therein lies the main rub with all this integration hoopla – the feminist harpies in political circles want women in every job in the military, yet they possess not a lick of understanding about these jobs or about unit cohesion, or about how we fight or how to win wars.  All they care about is their lame feminist agenda and waxing on about smashing glass ceilings.  There are females in the military like this too – totally centered on being the “first female” this or that – with no regard for the big picture – how their feminist agenda affects the whole team.  No one ever speaks honestly about the problems of women serving in positions where there are two different sets of physical standards for the same job, yet everyone has to pretend there aren’t.  No male commander can mention how pregnancy in actual deployments creates a gap in mission performance, nor can he impose any sensible policies for fear of the feminist harpies who monitor women in the military issues.  (ABC news story of one such attempt)

When we went on field training exercises, I spent many hours being a perimeter guard and I slept in a two-man tent with my machine gun partner, who luckily for me was a young man whom I could trust and who never said a single inappropriate comment to me.   So, when he was sleeping, I was on guard duty and the thing these feminist harpies fail to realize is their idiotic decisions could cause someone’s death in real war.  When we went to the field they used the few infantry soldiers we had to play the opposing force.  One young infantry sergeant would toss a stone near my guard position at night and whisper my name (he always approached from in front of my position).  He would come sit a few minutes and talk, then he’d head back to be the opposing force.  Now, that cocky 82nd sergeant, he’d approach my guard position from behind me, which meant he already had breached our perimeter.  He would often whisper my name in the dark too and then he would come over and he always checked that machine gun first to make sure I had it set up properly, then he asked me if I remembered this and that and after that he would sit a few minutes and talk.  He would then say, “Okay, back to fighting the war.” and he’d head back into the dark.    I always heard the young infantry sergeant long before he tossed a stone, but that 82nd sergeant, well most of the time I didn’t hear him until he whispered my name and by then he was close enough to take me out.  I would sit there in the dark after he left, telling myself, “I jeopardized our mission again!”  And I would try harder, but I thought about if we were at war against the Soviets – any Soviet infantryman could have killed me in a  heartbeat if it came to one on one fighting and I would think about my partner sleeping a few feet away and his life would have been at risk too.  I always knew that no matter how much I trained, the physical advantage was on the man’s side.  Smart armies should want the strongest men to be infantry soldiers – they best fit the mission.

The answer to the sexual assault and rape problems isn’t to get Congress involved or to have more sensitivity training.  The solution is to train better leaders in the ranks – we need to get back to basics and away from all this politicized claptrap and turning the military into a political correctness experiment.  Back to good order and discipline, back to treating soldiers fairly and consistently, back to focusing on setting high standards.  And most of all we need to decide all missions based on what best fits the mission ( in some cases that will mean men perform those missions) !

And here’s the truth about women and men, we need to get back to teaching them to be ladies and gentlemen, especially in the officer ranks.  Teaching respect at every level in the military will set the standard, so that every soldier will have confidence in the chain of command again.

6 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, Military, Politics

June 2, 2013 · 2:05 pm

The GOP policy maverick rides again (unfortunately)

Andrew McCarthy penned a brutally honest assessment of the John McCain Arab democracy projects in a National Review piece, “Syria: John McCain’s Next Libya” (article here).  It’s way past time for the GOP to take away the megaphones from John McCain and Lindsey Graham.  They spend more time being simultaneously for and against issues than John Kerry and that sure takes policy acrobatics to a whole new level.  These two relish all the media attention and they hog the media spotlight to such an extent that President Obama gets a pass on these policy debacles, because Graham and McCain so generously stamp the GOP seal of approval all over these foreign policy disasters.  It seems like only a few upstarts like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have the guts to stand up to these bloviating relics.   The GOP needs an internal rebellion or maybe it’s time for a new party, because the GOP  doesn’t seem to welcome new ideas and their “maverick” should be put out to pasture with his woefully misguided foreign policy adventure notions.

Long, long ago there was a revolution that was not our own.  Our own political leaders argued back and forth whether to stick our nose into some other country’s  internal struggles.  During that revolution (the French Revolution), George Washington stood on a policy of neutrality, amidst impassioned cries for the United States to come to the aid of the revolutionary factions trying to topple an odious monarch.  His wise decision should give us pause to keep arming rebel bands, whose willingness to commit atrocities make them no better than the autocrat they’re trying to depose.  The French Revolution did not usher in some glorious new period of enlightened democratic governance.  It opened the door for an even more odious tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, to grasp the reins of power and embark on a decade of military adventurism, waging war across Europe, into North Africa and all the way into Russia.   John McCain always speaks like he’s an expert on military matters, but thus far he sure seems weak on military history and if his Libya adventure is any indication, he’s clueless on his glorious Arab Spring.

Like I said before, the only way to effectively stop the slaughter in Syria is for the major world powers to form a unified front and insist on a cessation of the carnage.  This would incur a great deal of responsibility for these world leaders too, which they won’t want to incur.  Plus, the Russians and Chinese have already decided to play the same old Cold War era game, so we should resist the urge to join in that outdated policy avenue.  Far better to stay out of the Syria mess than to escalate the violence and arm more jihadists and throw in more advanced weaponry that can be used against us or our only true ally in the region – Israel.  If you’re not willing to do what’s necessary for an outcome you want, then you’re better to stay out of a mess like this.  We should have learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that we can’t install democracy – it’s got to come from within.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Military, Politics

May 29, 2013 · 4:17 am

The Mom World Peace Solution

For decades I’ve read about foreign policy, military strategy and history.  Of course, being around the US Army my entire adult life helped me form my world view, which runs toward believing in a strong national defense.  The question “why war” captivated my imagination long ago when I was assigned to a Pershing missile unit and first learned about being a Cold War Warrior.  Grenada shaped that question to looking for a road to Peace and I’ve spent years pondering this question.  Is there actually a road to Peace or are we destined to endless  wars?   In the for what it’s worth department, here’s my opinion.

If the world had leaders who could find their way toward trusting a little more and agreeing on some common ground – situations like Syria wouldn’t linger.  I talk about how we don’t have a dog in that fight and that’s true – but really the death of thousands to senseless violence hurts us all in the long run – another intractable cycle of virulent hate and factional fighting. 

If we had groups of kids fighting like that, we would step in and separate them, take away their weapons and tell them they need to sit in time out until they can learn to play nice.  In situations like this where the sides fighting are varied and irrational – our world “leaders” only big internal debate is about giving these out of control factions more weapons – so they can wreak more havoc.  We wouldn’t even consider this with kids and yet with the least-developed, least stable states – that’s our answer – give them more sophisticated weapons and then we really think we can control these rogue states that we armed to the teeth?  Would you trust kids who haven’t mastered some self control and demonstrated some maturity with your car keys?  But we talk about trusting them with advanced weaponry?  We have North Korea with nuclear weapons, with the nuts in Iran close behind, for crying out loud.

The leaders would have to agree on some ways to stop the slaughter of so many people and actually help some stable civil institutions emerge under the watchful eye of a united front of world leaders.  But the world leaders are always playing these elaborate games to one up each other and lying so much to each other in the pursuit of playing high stakes diplomacy that the entire world system is built upon the shaky house of cards called lying.  Distrust is the foundation of all our international institutions. 

It would take time and many failures to change that fundamental lack of trust, but good leaders have got to pave the way toward that goal, by gradually embarking on cooperating on some issues and getting a few wins in the building trust department. For instance when one of my sons went to Russia for a study abroad program, he stayed with one family at first where he didn’t feel comfortable, so he was put in a hotel until they located another family for him.  Finally they placed him in the home of a retired Soviet Army officer and my gut reaction after all those years embracing the Cold Warrior mentality – was relief.  I believed a Soviet Army officer would have an orderly, disciplined home and live by good principles.  He and his wife treated my son like part of their family and my son still talks about “my host father” all the time.

The world can’t change overnight, but with a commitment to dealing with people (as flawed as they are) and having some courageous world leaders take some steps toward building trust and acting in unison to quell some of these bad situations like Syria, with the senseless slaughter – over time we could have more wins in positive cooperation and helping people and less violence – bringing people toward more peaceful coexistence benefits everyone. 

A strong national defense remains vital though – because the strong really must protect the weak.  I believe the “world order” could change for the better and I don’t understand why people accept this belief that this is the way it’s always been, so this is the way it has to be.  People are flawed – sure, they lie a lot, and that leads to all these other bad things – but we sure don’t have to set up our international institutions based on the lowest common denominator – how about raising the bar some and setting some ideals worth striving for? 

The UN turned out to be a cesspool of lying and so fraught with corruption that it sure as hell hasn’t provided an avenue, so maybe if we had just a handful or so of world leaders willing to begin the change and embarking on a few trial problems, as honest brokers – changing course could inch forward.  Wouldn’t that be “change you can believe in”? (lol)

In the case of Syria, President Obama continues to drag his feet on action.  Aside from some clandestine support to the opposition (of which Benghazi was probably part of some gunrunning operation), he has remained indecisive.  Now, John McCain upped the ante a bit by entering Syria and meeting with a Syrian rebel force (here) and he’s pushing for us to unilaterally jump into this hot mess. 

The Russians and Chinese, in Cold War default mode, are aiding Assad, so we’re stuck in the same old pattern.  Now, I sure don’t support the US independently taking on the role of world policeman and until we can get the world leaders to step outside their traditional geopolitical mindset – yes, we are doomed to endless  wars.  Men, who thought up all these elaborate theories for war, only think about more force to have one side win.  Truly, for the Russians, Chinese or the United States, is some rebel band leading Syria going to be much better than Assad?  

The rationale offered by people like McCain is that if we arm these rebels, they can topple Assad and end the fighting.  That’s a nice bit of wishful thinking.  There’s no political leadership behind these rebel groups, just bands of rampaging, angry men.  The hope that amongst them is some George Washington at the end of the road, to unite and build a functioning democratic state requires a degree of delusional thinking that escapes me.

Certainly the tragedy in Syria leaves one wishing for a way to end the fighting quickly.  However, handing more weapons to poorly led, rampaging bands of rebels with little military finesse and a lot of rage seems a recipe for more horrific violence, not less. 

The world needs real leadership where the strongest countries should agree to provide a united front and force some calm and work at disarming rather than funneling in more and more advanced weaponry.  Once the irrational actors are neutralized, then rational actors in places like Syria should come to the table and work at political solutions.  This is the Mom world peace solution – take away the dangerous toys from the kids who can’t play nice and who haven’t mastered some self-control.  No fancy one-world government solution or new complicated political theory or even some religion- just common sense. 

The road to Peace is built, brick by brick, by building trust among leaders (people). 

As with most human endeavors the answers are simple, but that sure doesn’t make them easy.   Trust is one of the hardest things for people to achieve – definitely much harder than devising a theory like “mutually assured destruction”.  Only men could think up that one, believe me!  A Mom sure never would – she’d take away the weapons from the misbehaving, immature kids on the world stage and put them in time out until they learned to play nice;-)

3 Comments

Filed under Food for Thought, Foreign Policy, Military, Politics

May 25, 2013 · 12:25 pm

America at the crossroads

On May 23, 2013 President Obama laid out his American foreign policy vision- near-sighted, delusional and dangerous in it’s breathtaking lack of  understanding the “fundamental transformation” gripping the Muslim world (full text here).  This speech will be pulled up by historians decades from now and pegged as the Neville Chamberlain “peace in our time” moment.  In trying to define this “struggle” against Muslim-driven terrorism, President Obama completely misread the events of the past decade and by asserting victory, while leaving an enemy still fighting on the battlefield, so to speak, he has set the course for emboldening not only al Qaeda and Muslim-driven terrorists, but also all our other adversaries in the world.  This speech serves as a delusional attempt at pretending that by saying something is true, it makes it true.  Certainly, we don’t want to keep large numbers of troops engaged in nation-building across the Muslim world, in the hopes that we can buy loyalty and cooperation.  But we must remain vigilant and flexible in taking the fight to Muslim extremists, both terrorist actors and the many state sponsors of Muslim extremism.  Alarmingly, President Obama has aligned himself with Muslim Brotherhood leaders, whose stated purpose is to advance the very same goals as Al Qaeda and it’s affiliates.

President Obama states, “So America is at a crossroads.  We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us.”  No truer words have ever been spoken and therein lies the rub.  We have never defined this struggle, because out of misplaced political sensitivity, President Bush and President Obama perpetuate the misguided “Islam means Peace” trope and refuse to ever define this struggle in the real world terms of “enemies” – those people or groups intent on defeating us.  An ideology, benign or violent, will never threaten anyone.  It takes that human factor to bring an ideology to life and it’s the humans who embrace and act based on an ideology  whom pose a threat to us.  Enemies are always people.  Islam, as preached and practiced, by a substantial number of Muslim clerics, falls far from a religion of Peace .  We have groped around trying to find suitable terminology to differentiate “peaceful Islam” from the radicalized form, but this whitewashing effort is purely a one-sided effort, because for most of the world’s Muslim clerical experts – there is only one Islam and that Islam is the one that embraces Sharia law, reestablishment of a Caliphate and a world controlled by Muslims.  It is a totalitarian political doctrine, wrapped up in the trappings of a religion.  Until we have the guts to define this struggle as a political struggle against a totalitarian movement, we will continue to lose.

Al Qaeda is not dead, in fact, it has been breathed new life by the Arab Spring revolutions and these Muslim Brotherhood dominated countries will aid, fund, arm and utilize these al Qaeda groups to do their dirty work.  They will find plenty of work to carry our the black ops for actual states now.  It’s ridiculous to believe our government’s constant refrain that we’ve neutralized al Qaeda, because we’ve killed so many of it’s top leaders and at the same time believe the many years our government was explaining the challenge of defeating al Qaeda was because it wasn’t a hierarchically run organization (no top down leaders) – no it was tentacles of terror – lots of loosely aligned groups of like-minded radicalized nuts.

The major foreign policy failure of our time is our reliance on “experts” from academia and think thanks, who conjure up fancy sounding theories and rationales for events unfolding around the world.  We’ve revamped and restructured our intelligence operations in the wake of 9/11, yet we seem more clueless and misguided than ever at actually understanding world events and understanding unfolding events.  It’s because we allow agenda-driven hacks to formulate our policy rather than paying attention to the events unfolding and listening to what these adversaries and enemies say.  Al Qaeda and it’s many affiliates give rambling speeches to recruit followers and to let the world know this is their “mission”.  And here’s the stark reality, no blinders on view – they have a clearly stated mission, that has not wavered.  We have wishful thinking on our side.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Military, Politics

May 23, 2013 · 9:02 am

The duty of a wise people

George Washington captured my imagination and heart as a child, with his humility, his love for the land, his willingness to take on public duties when all he truly wanted to do was return to his farming at his home, Mount Vernon.  In the darkest days of the Revolutionary War,  his army in rags and struggling to survive a cold winter encamped at Valley Forge, PA from December 1778 to June 1779, General Washington, didn’t toss up his hands and say, “they don’t pay me enough to put up with this misery!”  He didn’t  pack up his gear and head south for the winter.  He suffered right beside his troops and spent many hours writing letters (excellent site here), often pleading for funds to arm, feed and clothe his ragtag army.  In those dark days, he still took the time to handle mundane and routine personal business matters, keep in touch with his wife and family, while dealing with some of the toughest challenges of leadership.  He tackled starting an army from scratch, with no experts and limited military experience, he forged ahead, always placing the highest importance on principles over expediency.   He paid attention to not only the big problems, but he made time to deal with the little problems too.   George Washington didn’t wait for someone else to solve his problems.

He had learned early in life to think for himself.  He didn’t have a fancy education or access to as many books as most ordinary public schools contain today.  What he did have was character honed by the strength of his convictions.  Early in life he copied out by hand (no cut and paste option back then)  “rules” to live by that had been used by Jesuit tutors for generations, as Richard Brookhiser explains in his book, “Rules of Civility: The 110 Precepts That Guided Our First President in War and Peace” (here).   What is so lacking today is what George Washington used to guide his life- a belief in ideals.  There’s a quote that I had taped up from the time I was a teenager that helped guide me and to this day challenges me to never lose sight of the values I believe in, “Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with your hands.  but like the seafaring man on the deserts of waters; you choose them as your guides, and following them you will reach your destiny.” – Carl Schurz.   George Washington helped me build my character, by setting an example worth following.  Some Jesuit teachings helped him find his.  Our children need to be taught to find some worthy ideals to emulate. George  Washington believed so much in our American future that when he finally did return home, he changed the orientation of his home from east to west, believing America’s future lay, not in it’s English past, but in the uncharted America that lay westward.  He inspired a fledgling nation then and he still inspires many of us today.

George Washington was so revered by the American people that, had he chosen to grasp those reins of power, he could easily have become America’s first “king”.  He reluctantly took on the first executive task to try and unite a new nation, serving two terms and then peacefully handing over power to another President, with very different political views and the leader of  a rival political party.  Washington never joined a party, but his views aligned with the Federalist Party.  In his farewell address (full text here), he warned of  the dangers of factions and partisan politics.  The entire speech runs well over 7,000 words and offers up memorable quotes on a wide range of issues vital to a free people committed to popular government and preserving our Republic. Every American should take the time to read this speech sometime.  Here are a few paragraphs on the danger of factions and political parties:

“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”

We should listen to his wise counsel whispering to us on the winds of time.

7 Comments

Filed under American Character, American History, Food for Thought, Politics

May 22, 2013 · 9:54 pm

Lessons From The Village

In the past week the Obama scandals seem to be multiplying faster than rabbits.  Benghazi blazed back to life, the IRS scandal hadn’t even crested, when the AP and FOX news reporters phones and emails being monitored by the Obama Justice Department hit (here, here, here).  Then, the Oklahoma tornado pretty much sidelined all other news since yesterday and the White House got a slight reprieve from the media barrage.  Obviously, these scandals will pick up steam and more will assuredly come to light as the abuses of unchecked power of bureaucrats in the executive branch swell beyond the administration’s ability to spin (LIE)  them away as right-wing conspiracy witch hunts.  Some of those witch hunters should invest in sturdier brooms to sweep this bunch of dirtballs out the door, but sadly way too many Republicans in Washington get too caught up in the partisan politics rather than scrupulously following the law and keeping this about upholding the Constitution rather than setting the stage for the 2014 election cycle.  Upholding the rule of law should be the paramount concern.  The truth should matter.

The partisan divide, where both political factions spend more time trying to take down the other side than they do trying to actually govern in a positive way, leaves us stuck with a country fractured and bleeding and having fewer and fewer shared values to patch our wounds.  The distrust of President Obama propelled gun and ammunition sales off the charts.  The reports of Homeland Security and other federal agencies stockpiling ammo, makes one wonder if this distrust cuts both ways.  Comments by Obama officials about radical right-wingers, potentially dangerous soldiers and Christians demonstrates that the distrust runs both ways and makes one wonder where this will all lead.  Then the recent reports about the military targeting Christians as potential extremists hinted at a planned purging of the US military officer corps, had me wondering if we’re in for a drastic attempt at politicizing and radicalizing our armed forces, where far-left kooks set the policies.

To survive, our country needs to find it’s way back to some shared values and if we can’t do that our Republic will not survive as the great beacon of hope it has been.   For me, the Constitution always served as the keystone of my American value system. Being from PA, well, we are big on the “keystone” rhetorical device, lol.  As a child growing up in a rural village (yes, I know more about village life than the official “it takes a village” expert of America), the turmoil of the 60s and 70s pretty much passed us by.  We did have some hippies move into some old farmsteads and try the back to nature living.  I remember one communal group bringing their kids to our vacation Bible school and I had a few of their children in my preschool class ( I got the youngest group – because no one wanted to deal with all that crying and constant having to use the bathroom).  We weren’t sure what to make of folks living in a commune and they sure seemed uneasy about us.  What happens when people distrust each other is the misunderstandings, exaggerations and fabrications about the other group multiply and spread.  I remember hearing fantastic stories about the orgies, drugs and nefarious doings of this particular group.  After talking to several of these mothers over many months, I realized that they were a Christian group trying to live a simple life in the country.  They named their children Biblical names.  And after getting to know them, I realized these fantastic stories weren’t remotely true.  Even more dramatic was when we had the first black families move into our area – once again more distrust, wild stories, etc., because they came from inner-city Philadelphia (those dreaded “city” people) and it was several families living together and oh my, they were “black” (which to some locals made them as threatening as the whole Soviet Army).  These children rode on our bus and I wanted to learn about our new neighbors, so I talked to them and found out that they weren’t threatening in the least.  The one certain thing I knew was they were scared to death at first getting on a bus with all white kids.  Life in a village taught me (as I’ve repeatedly said) that getting to know people matters more than all the “I heard” or “I have it on good authority” or “everyone says” in the world.

Our leaders need to start agreeing on some simple common values to build trust in our institutions again and also in each other.  If we continue to let partisan politicos send us rampaging about one hot button issue after another, we’re doomed.  We can’t continue to play dangerous, divisive political games where we pit various groups of Americans against each other for political advantage.  The village expert of America, Hillary Clinton, perfected this evil vast, right-wing conspiracy hysteria and we now have a Homeland Security department profiling former servicemen and tea party types as “dangerous”.  We’ve got some right-wing talk radio types who fuel the conspiracy theories about the federal government.  It’s way past time for average Americans to stop letting themselves be played like this.  It’s hurting our country!  We’ve got to agree on some common values – like respect for the rule of law, the belief that everyone counts in America, the belief that the strong must protect the weak, advocate for being a good neighbor in both word and deed.  These are simple values that should not be controversial, regardless of your race, ethnicity or religious views.  If we spent half as much time teaching our children to treat other people with respect and basic manners, as we do with all this politicized diversity claptrap, green agenda and endless causes, we might make some progress at restoring order to our classrooms.  Really, treating other people with respect and taking the time to get to know people – how controversial is that?

Leave a comment

Filed under American Character, Food for Thought, Politics, The Constitution

May 15, 2013 · 2:41 pm

American Propaganda Masters (ignore that man behind the curtain)

The numerous scandals brewing finally woke up a hypnotized mainstream media, but I want to talk about something else.  During the Clinton impeachment drama, their spinmeisters hit the media – print and TV (lacking only to dominate talk-radio) with a relentless wave of media manipulation efforts.  They floated deceptive language and phrases to try and confuse the American public into accepting that lying under oath was no big deal depending if the testimony pertained to personal sexual behavior.  Along with the “it’s just about sex, sex, sex” line, they also used the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” as a diversionary tactic to convince the American people that Bill Clinton was a “victim”.  Rehashing this old scandal  is meant to illuminate a problem in America, that trickles down from the highest reaches of our government.  Americans, by and large, take their personal liberty and the many blessings of living in a free society for granted.

The mass media manipulations (propaganda) will hit full-force as another corrupt administration tries to survive a series of scandals.  The DNC, the Clinton political machine and President Obama with his army of far-left kooks and Chicago-type political operatives will feverishly work to contain these scandals.  The Republican partisans will mobilize to capitalize on these scandals and make as much political hay as possible.  Seeking the  truth will not be the ultimate objective of either side’s efforts.  Political objectives will fuel both sides.  Even during President Reagan’s second-term, Iran-Contra marred his legacy and it pained me to see some of his cabinet testify using slippery language and, in my view, lie.  Both political parties fall prey to lying way too often.

President Clinton’s poll numbers were touted by the Clinton mouthpieces endlessly during the impeachment saga to neutralize and derail the impeachment efforts.  He governed using a finger-to-the-wind approach rather than from firm principled footing.  To this day much of our news, from all political angles, is presented with polling data as the benchmark on issues.  From impeachment to the present-day gay marriage – issues are sold to the American public, not on the merits of the issue, but on polling data.  Once over 50% of the public can be cited as “supporting” that viewpoint, the media accepts that polling data as a reflection of the “will of the people“.  What we’re being duped into believing is that if you can deceive, trick, and use mass media manipulation techniques (propaganda) effectively, then the end polling results are a true representation of the mainstream public’s position.

The merits of issues should be debated and argued, but to accept the end result of mass media manipulation campaigns, rather than demanding straight facts and the truth,  jeopardizes the very foundation of our liberties.  Polls reflect nothing more than the effectiveness of the propaganda efforts in America these days.   It’s reached the point where reporters talk about the administration’s “narrative” without raising an eyebrow or murmuring even a few probing questions.  We should demand the truth and facts, not settle for some slickly packaged “narrative”.  An administration that can utter explanations such as the white girlfriend that President Obama talked about in his autobiography was a “composite” of white girlfriends, with no media alarm bells being sounded, highlights how bereft of principles both this administration and the media are.  We can’t  trust a mainstream media that is so blinded by partisan politics.  And the Frank Luntz type of  finding the “pulse” of America by how people “react” to certain phrases in speeches provides nothing more than data to be utilized by political propagandists.  We need to try to get the American people to THINK about issues, which requires some time spent studying the issues and pondering the merits of both sides of an argument – not gauging superficial “reacting” on a second-by-second basis.

We need some calm, reasonable voices to remind people to put the partisan politics aside and demand to get to the ground truth facts, wherever they fall.  Polling numbers reflect nothing more than the barometer of political polarization efforts being fueled by partisan political operatives.   Polls do not reflect anything vital and we should demand that those in the media stop relying on polls as the determining factor on issues of great public import.  Polls are about how people “FEEL‘”, not about what people “THINK”  and hopefully we can get Americans to react less and think more.  An informed opinion rests on taking the time to gather as many facts as possible, making a free press a vital link in the process.   Maybe if we’re lucky our press will go back to demanding, “the facts” and let the political chips fall where they may.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars, Food for Thought, Politics, The Media

May 10, 2013 · 10:20 am

Just the facts, please….

Long ago in America we had three major TV networks from which to glean our news.  As a child of the 60s, I remember watching all three networks and truly the choice of which news network to watch depended on personal preferences on the news anchors, not the political angle of the reporting.  Each network covered pretty much the same stories and the competition seemed to be on which network would hit the airwaves with the story first.

The Benghazi saga illuminates a bigger picture problem than just the potential cover-up of the events that transpired September 11, 2012.  When cable news networks try to bury news stories for political reasons, obfuscate or “spin” (LIE),  then more is at stake than just a public disservice to the viewing public.

Living around the Army my entire adult life, I became  a compulsive channel-flipper when big news stories break.  Boy, during Grenada, CNN had come into existence by then, so there was an added news source, beyond the big 3 and the initial Reagan black-out on reporting had me glued to the TV hoping for some news.  Grenada affected my life personally, because my husband had deployed with the 82nd Airborne Division.  Once news dribbled out and the Reagan administration provided news updates, well, all the networks provided pretty much the same facts.  Grenada was over quickly, but I did receive a letter in the mail that my husband wrote on the back of what looked like a C-ration box and honestly I don’t remember when MREs replaced the C-rations (which I thought were much better truthfully- just a side note, lol).  This mail was brought back to Fort Bragg and stuck into envelopes and mailed to our homes, courtesy of the Army.  As time went on, I remember Desert Storm living with no TV news, because we were living in Germany and my husband deployed from there.  We lived in leased military quarters and had no AFN and my German is lamentably bad, so German TV news was useless.  I listened to AFN radio and relied mostly on much slower press accounts of the war.

Watching the news in the past 20 years evolve with the advent of the internet and deepening political divide in America, it’s alarming to me to flip through the channels and see the wide disparity on not only how news stories get covered, but what news stories get covered, the amount of coverage and the disparity on how some news networks choose to bury stories for sheer partisan political purposes.  Long ago we used to deride Pravda (that Soviet-era propaganda tool) as a reprehensible tactic to keep a people living in darkness by political deception.  Imagine my alarm when I’ll skim through the online English edition of Pravda occasionally and their reporting on many American news stories seems to offer a more honest, truthful accounting than many of our own prominent news outlets.

There’s a big picture crisis brewing in America, when we calmly accept lies for political advantage over demanding the truth.  When you can get two completely removed realities at the same time, by just flipping the news channels, well, it sets the stage for political manipulation of the public on a massive scale.  This rivals anything that even Stalin or other communist regimes imagined.   While I’m disgusted with what looks like a Benghazi  cover-up, I’m worrying more about the big picture problem of  the  American public’s willingness to buy into wholesale lying to fit partisan political agendas.  If we the people don’t care about the truth, who will?

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics, The Media

May 1, 2013 · 5:39 pm

Christians: The Latest Obama Target

A few weeks ago I posted a piece, Equal Opportunity For Dummies, Courtesy of the US Army.   Now,  just in time comes a lot of reports that the Obama administration has the  Pentagon meeting  with a rabidly anti-Christian kook, Mikey Weinstein, who heads up the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization dedicated to ending Christian proselytizing within the military.   Perhaps, that PA National Guard Equal Opportunity training guide on potential extremists wasn’t just some isolated misguided fluke, but just might be part of a comprehensive Obama administration attempt to dismantle the core values that have served to make our military the finest in the world.  Here’s a short piece by Todd Starnes on a Fox News radio website on this latest attempt at purging our military of all who cling to their guns and traditions.  Don’t fret about the enemies beyond our borders, worry about the dangerous ideologue who holds the Commander In Chief powers and intends to begin the purges of all who resist another of his fundamental transformation efforts.  Gut our forces, demoralize all who cling to traditional military values, install sycophantic political hacks in all leadership positions, embroil our troops in gender issues, muddle mission with PC claptrap, impose stridently Christian intolerant policies, excuse Islamic extremism and destroy our force from within – hey, who said President Obama knows nothing about strategy – he’s got the old-time  big c “Communist”  blueprint memorized.  All that’s lacking is a fomentation of racial discord, which always figures largely in those old Communist goals.  Alas, I am just one of  those PA clingers to the past – this time I’m clinging to my Cold War training and it’s disconcerting that instead of all those endless worries about how to defend against the Soviets, the new worry lies on whether we’re being defeated by willfully ignoring the truth before our very eyes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars, Military, Politics