Friday, September 3, 2010
It is absurd that anything as innocuous as the message on a bracelet could cause such an uproar. The community of Baltic should be praising its young women, who are actively promoting the awareness of a disease that strikes one in eight of American women.
The picture accompanying the article was of 16 year old Amelia Atkins, who is wearing a “I Love Boobies” bracelet and a Susan G. Komen For the Cure breast cancer shirt saying, “Save the Ta-Tas.” Lord have mercy, she dares to wear the phrase “Ta-Tas” too.
In Clovis, CA, the boobie bracelets have also run afoul of educators. “The school district's dress code outlaws jewelry with sexually suggestive language or images…” So, I guess anything to do with a breast, even mentioning it, is sexual. How about breast feeding? Then again, Clovis is in Central California, don’t you know?
We are much more sophisticated in Southern California. Yesterday, in Simi Valley, CA, I saw a young girl leaving a junior high school with a low scooped blouse revealing a major portion of her bare upper breasts. She didn’t have a lot of protuberance, but what she had proudly jiggled as she walked. This girl is apparently not violating any school dress codes. Of course, she didn’t have on anything saying boobies or ta-tas either. But, I’ll bet that more than one of her male schoolmates experienced a surge of something relatively new to them, testosterone. Do you think that might be distracting to the school’s educational mission?
What gives? Well, clearly we Americans don’t have a consensus on the matter.
To the moral guardians and limiters of free speech in Clovis, Baltic, Colorado, Idaho, Florida and Wisconsin, I know that the courts have ruled that you can limit free speech of students at school. But, I say, “get a life.”
To the complacent educators in Simi Valley, get a backbone and address the issue about your young female students becoming sex objects before their time?
To the rest of you, support the breast cancer awareness movement. You owe it to all the women in your lives. Oh, and say “well done” to Amelia and her cohorts.
Link in this Blog:
Schools ban bracelets promoting cancer awareness
Sunday, August 29, 2010
I submitted a letter to the editor on the subject to the Simi Valley Acorn, which published an edited version under the title of, “Sign ordinance is bad for democracy.”
Below is the unedited piece that I submitted.
City of Simi Valley Prohibits Political Signs In Favor of Incumbency
In 2006, the City of Simi Valley enacted a city ordinance prohibiting the placing of temporary signs, including pre-election political signs, on the public right-of-way.
The ordinance asserts, “The placement and accumulation of temporary signs in the public right-of-way, on traffic and utility devices, upon public sidewalks or on public easements presents dangerous conditions to the free and safe flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Such areas must be preserved for official traffic signs and official utility notices in order to assure the safe flow of traffic.” The ordinance justification offered no proof of hazard existing in the City.
The only proof of justification stated within the ordinance concerned aesthetics. The 0rdinance states, “Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, the City of Simi Valley has permitted temporary signs in the public right-of-way, which has resulted in substantial unsightly conditions, as illustrated in evidence presented to the City Council during its consideration of this ordinance.”
It goes without saying that a sitting member of the city council enjoys a considerable political incumbent advantage over an election challenger. That advantage is the result of name recognition and opportunities to interact with the residents and business community in the course of conducting city business.
One of the main mechanisms to gain name recognition is the time honored tradition of posting temporary political signs in advance of an election. There is no greater venue for political signs than the public right-of-way.
By improving the “aesthetics” of the city and forbidding the posting of political signs on the public right-of-way, the council voted a political advantage for themselves.
Limiting candidate free speech robs the public of the opportunity to learn about their prospective city leaders.
City Council challenger Keith Mashburn wants to amend the city sign ordinance to correct the political injustice. Vote for Keith Mashburn, a man of integrity.
Link in this Blog
Sign ordinance is bad for democracy
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Obama is putting in play and adding federal bureaucratic teeth to a whole host of mechanisms that reduce Americans’ personal rights. He is now signaling that an American foundational concept, religious freedom, is in jeopardy.
“Words matter - listen carefully to our current administration.” This quote is from the article, “Minor Changes in Language Could Mean Major Changes in Religious Freedom.”
“The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.”
"To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."Wake up Americans! Your president and the leftist political leaders are intent upon structurally transforming America with an expansive federal government power grab that diminishes personal freedoms. It is happening in a myriad of ways: from healthcare; to voting rights; to mining rights; to the public access of public lands, and it has been going on for a long time. The trend diminishes when Republicans control the government and rapidly accelerates when the Democrates wield the power.
You should be feeling a little European socialist by now. When do we become fascist?
Links in this Blog:
Minor Changes in Language Could Mean Major Changes in Religious Freedom
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Professor Weissberg wrote,
“I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.”
Recent national polls show that nearly half of Americans not only distrust our government, they see government as a threat to individual rights. Least we focus exclusively on the federal government, recognize that the distrust extends downward to local government and law enforcement. In other words, the public distrusts from top to bottom the institutions entrusted with protecting the citizens’ Constitutional rights.
Thomas Sowell wrote in “Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?”
“In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.”American democracy is diminished by the disregard and willful failure to uphold Constitutional rights guaranteed to American citizens.
I’m willing to bet that every law enforcement officer on the job over ten years has witnessed or knows of incidents wherein law enforcement has knowingly violated the rights of citizens. Often, it is a “little person,” someone not likely to challenge authority, who has his rights violated. Here’s an example.
A drug abuser with likely damaged mental faculties probably took off his clothes on a public street in the dark of the predawn hours. That is all the subject apparently did. A motorist called and notified the local police department. Officers responded and located a subject fully dressed. The subject was neither under the influence of alcohol nor drugs, and he had no outstanding warrants for his arrest. Finding no other mechanism to arrest the subject, officers arrested him for indecent exposure under a California penal code statute. The trouble with the arrest is that the law stipulates that the subject must have drawn attention to his genitals in an effort to arouse a sexual response in another person. The law is a misdemeanor, and there must be a witness who will affirm that he observed the subject commit the violation. The notifying motorist made no mention of any sexual activity and at any rate he was not available to make an assertion one way or the other. The officers did not observe a violation, and in truth there is no evidence, other than an anonymous assertion, that the subject had been naked on a public street. Mere nakedness by California statute is not a violation. The alleged perpetrator wasn’t talking. Maybe he was not so mentally impaired after all. He knew better than to talk to the police. The police Watch Commander, a lieutenant, was advised of all the circumstances and couldn’t care less about the niceties of the law. The arrest and booking was approved. Unlawfully depriving a man of his freedom is not a trivial matter. I know the story is true because I am the one who apprised the lieutenant of the officer’s unlawful arrest.
A glaring example of law enforcement’s major violation of Constitutional rights were the Louisiana orders for warrantless and lack of probable cause confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens during the Katrina disaster.
Alarmed by the firearm confiscation and other rights violations, individual law enforcement and military personnel, who honor their oath to uphold the Constitution, formed a national organization called the Oath Keepers. When individual police officers find it necessary to declare publicly that they will not obey orders which violate individual’s Constitutional rights, there is trouble brewing. It is a warning that violations of personal rights are likely rampant. The Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey these ten orders.
“We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.”
“We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.”
“We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.”
“We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.”
“We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.”
“We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.” “We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.”
“We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. “
“We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.”
“We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.”Values alien to the Constitution and American democracy are definitely in play from top to bottom. Thomas Sowell is correct,
“Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time.”Links in this Blog:
Robert Weissberg -A Stranger in Our Midst
48% See Government Today As A Threat to Individual Rights
Thomas Sowell-Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
Monday, June 28, 2010
General McChrystal is by all accounts not a careless man. Rather, he is an accomplished tactician. Agreeing to a magazine interview and delivering the words as he did was certainly a tactic with grave personal consequence. It is absurd to think that McChrystal did not know that he’d most likely get sacked.
McChrystal’s message is that the Afghanistan mission is in jeopardy due to American civilian political ineptitude. And, that falls squarely on the shoulders of Obama.
When McChrystal was given the job of commanding the Afghanistan operation, he learned by meeting with Obama that the president lacked depth.
“Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."”
Generals are interested in expeditiously winning the conflicts that are imposed upon them by politicians. Politicians are interested in maintaining power for themselves and their party. The disparate goals are often in conflict.
“Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position." For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "”
Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings wrote,
“McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."”If you are not a warrior, perhaps you don’t understand how serious McChrystal was when he stated, "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."
Some writers are depicting McChrystal as reckless, shooting himself in the foot. Others characterize Obama’s firing of McChrystal as heroic. Both characterizations are incorrect. Obama fired McChrystal because McChrystal was insubordinate. McChrystal was insubordinate because he chose the route of the whistleblower.
It didn’t take any guts to fire McChrystal, but it sure did to sacrifice your career by standing up and declaring in effect that Obama and his administration are incompetent to lead this country in a time of war.
As a top general, McChrystal was no longer in the position to literally die for his comrade warriors. But, what he was able to do was to deliberately fall on his sword to help expose the feckless politicians who send his warrior comrades to die.
Uu-ah General McChrystal. Warriors everywhere need leaders like you!
Link in this Blog:
The Runaway General
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
"I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."I suspect Obama is quite comfortable with this type of language and sentiment.
If it were not for the Internet and talk radio, we’d never know about this statement because the main stream media won’t tell you. In this case, thanks Real Clear Politics and Drudge.
Truth be told, many of us might make such a statement. Then again, none of us is president, and the world is watching and listening.
Impressive president. No? Could the president possibly wait to use such language publicly until he is just citizen Obama again?
Link in this Blog:
Real Clear Politics Video-Obama “ass to kick”
In a few short minutes, Dennis defines and clarifies the root of the problems facing the United States of America. If you guessed it is Obama, you’d be wrong. It is, however, why we now have this president.
Clear thinkers are in short supply. Check-out Dennis, and share his wisdom with others. This nation needs clarity.
Hugh Hewitt is also a squared away national radio talk show host, lecturer and Constitutional attorney.
Link in this Blog:
Dennis Prager Q&A University of Denver 5/23/10
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower’s message to the troops just prior to the invasion stated in part,
“In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.”
WWII veteran Arthur Seltzer knows what happened on Omaha Beach, he was there and waded ashore.
"It was a mess, a bloody, gory mess."
"You saw sights you never want to see again."
Subsequently, famed WWII war correspondent Ernie Pyle wrote these words,
“I took a walk along the historic coast of Normandy in the country of France.”
“It was a lovely day for strolling along the seashore. Men were sleeping on the sand, some of them sleeping forever. Men were floating in the water, but they didn’t know that they were in the water for they were dead.”The Germans were not just bent on the subjugation of Europe. They and their cohorts proactively attempted to exterminate with the “Final Solution” a segment of the population deemed unfit to reside on earth.
Seltzer knows about the extermination because on April 29, 1945 he was at Dachau when the chains were cut off the gate.
“…Seltzer and other liberators were among the first Americans to witness unimaginable abominations: walking skeletons, piles of emaciated bodies,and crematoriums filled with the ashes of human remains.”
A significant consequence at the end of WWII was the establishment of a contemporaneous Jewish homeland in a land inhabited by their ancestors for thousands of years. In truth, the majority of the post WWII world did not support the establishment of the State of Israel. Rather, Israel was the evolution of a British protectorate, an outcome of a convenient way to handle resettlement of a people not wanted elsewhere.
Charles Krauthammer wrote in Those Troublesome Jews,
“The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.”After accurately reviewing historic Israeli options concerning people determined to destroy the Jewish state, Krauthammer describes a world morality turned topsy-turvy. He concludes with,
“The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.”As Krauthammer states, the Obama administration is dithering. But not just dithering. Pres. Obama is making nice with the likes of Helen Thomas, a liberal White House journalist of Lebanese extraction. Thomas is not just some curmudgeon past her prime. She is a hater advocating sending Jews back to Germany and Poland. Of course, she now disavows her statement, but there is no doubt that she spoke her true heart’s desire in an unguarded moment. After Thomas’ hate rant, Drudge ran an undated photo of Pres. Obama with his arm around Thomas.
So, on the sixty-sixth anniversary of D-Day, I not only think of those who perished, were wounded or survived the invasion. I think about all those people who voted for the presidential candidate of “change.” I didn’t vote for him because I didn’t think that he is trustworthy. Even so, I had no idea that he’d dare change long standing U.S. foreign policy and support those clamoring for Israel’s destruction and the extinction of Jewry.
Character counts and since most Americans genuinely want what is best for the country and world, it seems that the majority voters misjudged their choice for president. For those for whom it is applicable, join me and stand up for traditional American values at the next opportunity to vote on our national representatives. The alternative is to allow our president to cozy with those who would send “Jews back to Germany and Poland” or worse.
If Thomas were to receive her wish, perhaps when the Jews get back to Europe they will visit the beaches of France and thank the departed and the few remaining survivors for their efforts now squandered. I wonder what choice words Seltzer might have for Thomas.
Ernie Pyle was sickened by what he saw on the beaches of Normandy. I am sickened by the un-American values that I see in the White House and the White House Press Corps. The horror that is likely to flow as a result of the Obama way of doing business will make D-Day look tame.
Links in this Blog:
General Eisenhower’s Message Sent Just Prior to the Invasion
Seltzer-Veteran to retrace path that led to D-Day horrors
Pyle-The horrible waste of war
Krauthammer-Those troublesome Jews
Helen Thomas Tells Jews ‘Get the Hell Out of Palestine’ and Go Back to Germany & Poland
Drudge Photo of Helen Thomas and Pres Obama
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The year was 1966 and I was a newly assigned machine gunner in an infantry unit that was protecting a high mountain pass that was between Da Nang and Phu Bai, Vietnam. The pass is called Hai Van Pass, which means Place of the Clouds. It is located 30 km north of Da Nang. The Marine Corps name of the hill that my unit was on was Hill 724. It was a dangerous and treacherous area that was of high strategic value.
There was only one narrow highway that wound up steep cliffs (Highway 1)that reached the peak at Hai Van. At the base of the hill was a small village called Namo. My story starts in that village. On a patrol through the village, my squad noticed a small wooden cage outside of a hooch.
We were new to Vietnam and unaware of the customs of the people. Wewere always alert for booby traps and we moved closer to the cage. Inside the cage was a small, brown puppy that brightened up when he saw us approach his cage. He began wagging his tail and wanting to be held. It was love at first sight for all of us.
Don't tell anybody, but most Marines are real softies when it comes to animals. The owner of the hooch came out and I decided to offer to buy his puppy. I just didn't like his living conditions. The old villager started his trying to up the price and after much debate, he decided on a price. He then pulled out a sharp knife and proceeded to open the cage.
All of us were shocked that he pulled a knife out and we all raised our weapons to him. He looked very frightened and assured us that he meant us no harm. He explained in gestures that he was just going to prepare the dog for us. We were confused and then he made the motion of drawing his knife across his neck to tell us that he was going to kill the dog and dress it out for us to Chop-Chop. I can only tellyou that the anger level went up 100 notches at that suggestion. We then realized that the dog was being raised to eat by the villager.
I unbuttoned my flak jacket and reached in and took the dog from his hands. I threw the money on the ground and placed the pup next to my heart so I could carry him up the long torturous climb back to our base camp.
The first event that happened was all of us knew that it was going to be a challenge to get our superiors to allow us to keep him. It was a miserable walk back to our hill. Our fears were baseless because we had a wonderful Captain, named Capt. Silva, and he allowed us to keep the puppy as a mascot. We loved him before, but we really lovedthe Captain after that.
Next we had the heated debate on what the dogs name should be. It was not an easy process since marines are very bull-headed and strong willed. After much serious and highly intelligent discussion we arrived at the unique name of Brown Dog. You have to know Marines to appreciate this.
Brown Dog was the darling of the hill and only one Marine hated him and that was OK, because we all hated him too. We all decided that if Brown Dog didn't like him that there had to be a damn good reason. Later he proved to be a coward in combat and was removed from our hill before he had an Accident.
Brown Dog was very happy that he left. I lost a stripe because I caught this guy kicking at Brown Dog and I explained to him not to do that again. I explained a little too harsh and the 1st Sgt. explained to me the error of my ways.
Brown Dog had a ritual of his life on the hill. At night we were in bunkers staring out into a dark, fog filled jungle. We were issued Seismic Listening Devices which consisted of probes planted in the ground in front of our bunkers. We had a smallconsole inside that had earphones. We could hear footsteps approaching or animals moving. We got pretty good with the device. Brown Dog would make the perimeter of our positions and visit every bunker to check on His marines. He was always awelcome visitor and he spent all of his non patrolling time in his daddys bunker, MINE! He also went on patrols with us and had an intense hatred for the Vietnamese. He would growl and really act up when he would see or smell one.
On April 1, 1967, we were dug in and the fog was pea soup thick that night. I was in the machine gun bunker and we were really spooked. About 3 am Brown dog shot up and went on full alert. I rang the field phone and informed the Command bunker that Brown Dog had alerted. Our Lt., ( Naval Academy IDIOT) advised me to trust my Seismic Device and not a damn dog!
My bunker was the forward bunker and the most vulnerable. I looked at my machine gun crew and whispered that I was going to disobey the Lt.s stupid order. They all nodded as I prepared the pop-up flare to shoot into the sky. I popped the flare and Lo and Behold we had Beaucoup Gooks in the wire! All hell broke loose and it was a very violent battle that night. It was up close and personal fighting and many people on both sides were killed and wounded. Brown Dog was hit by shrapnel but continued to fight the enemy. I saw him attack the leg of a NVA before he was zapped.
The attack failed and for what seemed like an eternity, we waited for the sun to come up. There were dead people in the wire, burning, and moaning out in pain in the darkness. I held Brown Dog in my arms and awaited the medivac helicopters that were coming to help our wounded. I really thought Brown Dog was going to die in my arms.
When the choppers came I handed my baby to the door gunner and asked him to get him medical help and told him that we would all be dead if it wasn't for Brown Dog. Marine to Marine, he gave me his word and I watched the dust-off. My Capt. pulled me aside and told me that he was glad that I never followed orders. He rubbed my head and told me that he was going to call to headquarters and tell them the story and he ASSURED me that Brown Dog was going to get the best of care.
Brown Dog had lost a lot of blood so I really didn't have much hope. The next day we received word that Brown Dog had been taken to Army Vets and they had saved his life. He had over 100 stitches, needed blood and antibiotics but he was going to live.
He was the hero to all of us. He received a canine award for heroism and we promoted him to Cpl. I also got my stripe back much to the chagrin of the Lt.
Cpl. Brown Dog returned to a heros welcome as we had a full formation to welcome him home.
I left the hill June 9th, 1967 and he was in very good hands with the Marines on the hill. I tried to take him home but that was impossible. I really hurt having to leave him on the hill, but I knew the Marines would take excellent care of him.
I have always thought it was so ironic that once he was going to be eaten by the Vietnamese and in turn he caused the death of so damn many of them!
All of my friends still have his picture and we all know that we would not be here today if it were not for a little, mixed breed dog named Brown Dog. He will be in our hearts until we die and a part of our souls forever.
When we assemble for our reunions, we always toast Brown Dog. Rest in peace little Warrior and wait for Your Marines to join you. We will always be Semper Fidelis to you and your memory. A Salute and three cheers for the finest Marine on our hill!
Ooo-Rah Brown Dog!
Cpl. Charles Patrick Dugan 2164539 USMC
Machine Gunner – Infantry
Uu-ah to Cpl. Charles Patrick Dugan and Brown Dog.
Link in this Blog: The Survival of Pat Dugan
Monday, February 22, 2010
The previous paragraph was written by AP reporter Christopher Torchia while accompanying our troops in the Afghanistan war against the Taliban. Torchia is a Sheep without a doubt, but a brave Sheep. Torchia and an AP photographer risk their lives plying their trade bringing us their observations and photographs.
To Torchia it is “…counterintuitive: running forward toward the danger. Not back.” He described, perhaps unwittingly, the quintessential difference between Sheep and Sheep Dogs, AKA warriors, military and non-military alike. (For those unaware of the concept of Sheep, Wolves and Sheep Dogs, see other pieces posted previously in this blog or consult the work of LTC Dave Grossman.)
I first read Torchia’s article in the print version of my local newspaper. Unfortunately, my newspaper did not post the article on its Internet site. As I do in these circumstances, I went to the Internet to find other postings of the article to provide an Internet link to the readers of this blog.
Often, I discover that the editors of print and online media change the titles and eliminate portions of AP articles. In this case, the first two of three located Internet postings of the article eliminated the sentence, “To the AP reporter, a civilian with no military background, it seemed counterintuitive: running forward, toward the danger. Not back.” They excised one of the only two unique portions of the article. The remaining distinctive sentence is, “The AP reporter, hauling the wounded man’s ammunition belt, was with two or three men who sprinted around a corner, straight into another ambush.”
It must be permissible for a journalist Sheep to assist the military by hauling an ammunition belt. But, it is apparently not ok for the journalist to observe that Sheep fundamentally react differently than Sheep Dogs in the face of danger. Such an observation forces recognition that there are two distinctly different classes of humans. And by extension, there is a requisite admission that survival of the masses requires a violence oriented class of individuals willing to engage in endangering activity for the betterment of mankind. That puts a kink in the leftist anti-military mantra.
Certainly, editors are constricted by space requirements, and must remain cognizant of professional standards and relevance. But, I wonder if personal and/or corporate political and social agenda sometimes plays a significant part in the editorial decision making. If agenda is the case, journalistic work becomes partial commentary and a form of editorial dishonesty accomplished by omission of portions of the journalist’s work product. In essence, the story is changed from what the journalist recounted.
Our freedoms are predicated upon an informed public. As in all things written, let the reader beware.
Link in this Blog:
Caught in the open: a firefight with the Taliban
Friday, February 5, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
In 1963, Gregory Ulas Powell and Jimmy Lee Smith kidnapped LAPD officers Ian James Campbell and Karl Hettinger. Officer Campbell was murdered in an onion field outside Bakersfield. The infamous crime was documented in former LAPD sergeant Joseph Wambaugh’s classic non-fiction book, “The Onion Field.”
Smith died in jail, but Powell is scheduled for a parole suitability hearing in Los Angeles on Wed., 1/27/10.
The California Board of Parole Commissioners includes:
Lea Ann Chrones
Mary Ann Tardiff
This morning I sent an e-mail to Chairman Robert Doyle urging the Board of Parole Hearings to deny suitability for parole to Powell, CDC A57622. The e-mail address was confirmed when I received back an e-mail thanking me for my input. Mr. Doyle’s e-mail address is: Robert.Doyle@cdcr.ca.gov
I suspect that the e-mail addresses for the rest of the Commissioners has the same formula as did the e-mail address for Doyle: first name, period, last name @cdcr.ca.gov
Send an e-mail to Doyle and any of the Commissioners supporting the denial of parole for this cop killer.
Link in this Blog:
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Massachusetts people did not just reject Martha Coakley, they rejected Pres. Obama and his leftists buddies Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and a host of other political cronies, who represent philosophies antithetical to the American dream.
Lock and load is still the order of the day, but there is once again a ray of sunshine shining through the darkness of leftist agenda.
Do not look for logic and consistency in the Middle East for they are not to be found.
It makes no sense to be frustrated that Arab intellectuals and reformers damn us for removing Saddam while they simultaneously now praise the democratic rumblings that followed his fall. We should accept that the only palatable scenario for the Arab Street was one equally fanciful: Brave demonstrators took to the barricades, forced Saddam’s departure, created a constitution, held elections, and then invited other Arab reformers into Baghdad to spread such indigenous reform-all resulting in a society as sophisticated, wealthy, free, and modern as the West, but felt to be morally superior because of its allegiance to Islam.
This is the dream that they found preferable to the reality: the Americans alone took out the monster of the Middle East; any peaceful protest against Saddam would have ended in another genocide; and adherence to Islamic fundamentalism is a prescription for economic stagnation.
Ever since the departure of the European colonials, the United States, due to its power and principled support for democratic Israel, has served as a Middle Eastern psychological need to account for its own self-created impotence and misery. This is a pathology abetted by our own past realpolitik and nurtured by the very autocrats that we sought to accommodate and who now, in their 11th hour, have turned on us for following principles rather than their own promises to maintain order and status quo.
After all these years, do not expect praise or gratitude for billions poured into Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, or Palestine-or thanks for the liberation of Kuwait, protection of Saudi Arabia in 1990, the remove of Saddam, more less for Americans concern for Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Somalia, the Sudan, or Afghanistan. Our past sins always must be magnified as much as our more recent benefactions are slighted.
The Western reader might well conclude that the “Arab Street” is delusional; an apt characterization while acknowledging that Arabic perception is the stuff of their self-serving cultural reality.
In confronting age old incendiary Middle East issues and the Islamist agenda, the error is ours if we insist on misunderstanding the Arabic mind and then predicating our actions solely from a Western perspective. That is true whether the Arabic mind is in the Middle East or in America. Concurrently, we must continue to offer the philosophy of Western style freedoms as a viable alternative and a helping hand up for a culture which last enjoyed greatness 1,000 years ago.
Source in this Blog:
Gaffney, Frank J, & Colleagues, "War Footing," Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 2006, pgs xvii-xviii.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Not long ago, I attended an elementary school tribute to the third grade student’s heroes. A Vietnam Vet in the crowd broke down in tears when he revealed that this was the first time that anyone ever thanked him for his military service.
I wish that today’s parents made American heroes a general topic of discussion at the dinner table. Here’s a good hero to begin the discussion, Col. Robert L. Howard, Congressional Medal of Honor.
View the video below; go to the Internet tribute site link; and see more information at the Wikipedia site.
Links in this Blog:
Robert Howard Tribute Site
Wikipedia-Col. Robert L. Howard
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
In Chicago, political correctness takes precedence over public safety. The Chicago Police Department is considering eliminating the police officer entrance exam to facilitate a greater hiring of minority applicants. What else could be expected from a city that gave us Pres. Obama? Here is the link to the story.
“Euphoria” overstates my emotional reaction that the Simi Valley Police Department has not sunk to the potential Chicago Police Department level. But, who knows? Given time, anything can happen.
Link in this blog:
Police May Scrap Entrance Exam: Report