Today’s Democrat Party views the United States military as nothing more than a political tool to further their agenda. And after Benghazi we see that our troops and intelligence operators are expendable if Democrats think sacrificing them is in their best political interests.
But don’t take it from me; just look at what they do.
Instead of preserving the world’s most effective combat force, the Democrat Party views the U.S. military as a massive source of funding (defense budget cuts), an opportunity to shore up political support through social engineering (allowing openly gay service members), and a means to further their liberal internationalist agenda (so-called “Responsibility to Protect” operations like Libya).
They know that the military community tends to vote strongly Republican, which partly explains their open contempt of the men and women that serve in the Armed Forces – whether falsely labeling them cold-blooded murderers (Rep. John Murtha), comparing them to Nazis, KGB, and the Khmer Rouge (Sen. Dick Durbin), joking about their intelligence (Sec. John Kerry)… the examples of the Democrat Party’s distaste for the military could easily fill an entire article.
But throughout American history, our troops knew at least if they were wounded, in danger of being overrun, or even killed, our military will do everything in its power to get rescue or recover you.
No one gets left behind. At least that’s how it used to be.
That is, until Benghazi, which has become one of the most dishonorable events in American history. When our consulate was attacked and overran, President Obama left Americans to die. Any rescue attempt was cut off – not by our enemies, but by the Obama administration.
Even worse than the tragic and preventable deaths of four Americans, Washington’s reaction over the last eight months shows the utter disregard the Democrat Party and media have for not only the fallen, but for all of our troops and operators.
I am not saying that each and every Democrat politician wanted those men to die. But can you name any Democrat politician that has said we need to get to the bottom of Benghazi? Has any Democrat even so much as distanced themself from their party’s callous disregard for the fallen? Washington can say they support the troops all day, it’s time they show us how they support our troops.
Since day one, the Democrat Party – primarily the Obama administration – and their media allies have sought to make the story go away. Since that didn’t work, they have resorted to distracting the American people and redirecting the focus by claiming Republicans are only making this an issue for political gain.
Just imagine if your son or daughter was killed in the attack and politicians reacted by saying that anyone trying to find out answers was only using the tragedy for political leverage. That really says something about our nation when the majority party can shamelessly stoop so low – and get away with it.
In today’s polarized society, politicians are increasingly using the term “extremist” to label their opponents. But what is an extremist? Merriam-Webster defines the word as “the quality or state of being extreme,” being the “farthest possible point from the center.”
Now those definitions by themselves are largely subjective; my view of the center and how far something is from it may be entirely different than yours.
But let’s consider an example: you are well within your constitutional rights to peaceably oppose partial-birth abortions. Likewise, someone who peaceably opposes the banning of such abortions would be within their rights. One could argue that this free exchange of ideas, for or against abortion, would be the “center.” Since neither group imposes upon the rights of the other, this is how our civilized society properly functions. Each citizen is entitled to his or her opinion and we empower government to express the will of the majority, provided the majority itself doesn’t interfere with the rights of the minority.
Extremists, those at the furthest possible point from the center, would be people willing to break laws and violate the rights of others in order to enact their goals. Someone willing to blow up a clinic that performs partial-birth abortions would be a perfect example of an extremist, as there is no further point from “the center” than taking the life of another in defense of your cause.
When we hear the term “anarchy,” it brings to mind a society with no laws or structure. In the hands of good people, anarchy can represent absolute freedom. One could argue that Americans would be far more prosperous if we were free of the heavy taxes and regulations that hamper our economy today.
But in the hands of the bad, anarchy represents chaos. There is no rule of law to deter criminals; no police force to protect the people or their property; no military to repel foreign invaders.
But that is only if we consider the citizens of a state. Expand the focus and consider anarchy of government.
Merriam-Webster defines anarchy as the “absence or denial of any authority or established order.” Ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We the people are in fact the rightful government of the United States, and those we have elected are mere public servants chosen to handle the affairs of the state according to our will and within the constraints of our Constitution.
Considering the history of our federal government in recent years – particularly the behavior of this Congress and administration – we can see an escalating trend of disregard for the established order of our Constitution and an increasing denial of the people’s authority over government.
No different than a robot in a science fiction movie that becomes “self-aware” and wrecks havoc on it’s former human masters, our government has also become self-aware: realizing, seemingly, that it is no longer the servant of the people, but the master. No longer bound by the Constitution, but all-powerful.
On this day in 1983, Pres. Ronald Reagan took full responsibility for the October bombing of the Beirut Embassy in Lebanon that killed 241 U.S. troops. Contrast that with the lies, stonewalling, and passing the buck of the Obama administration in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
Of course, neither president was directly responsible for the death of American service members overseas; we must not lose sight that both of these attacks were perpetrated by America’s enemies. However the policies of both presidents and the actions of their subordinates certainly played a role and is worth further investigation (in Obama’s case) and discussion.
Reagan wasn’t perfect. No man is. But by taking responsibility for something that happened under his watch, President Reagan displayed a level class that Americans are unlikely to ever see from the man who currently occupies the White House.
I have fought against the restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan under Bush and Obama as part of the counterinsurgency doctrine. To be fair, under the Reagan administration Marines were not allowed to have loaded weapons during their peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, and were only allowed to return fire under certain circumstances. Had the Marines pulling security outside the barracks been locked and loaded, then those 241 Marines, sailors, and soldiers probably wouldn’t have died.
After the attack, Reagan withdrew the peacekeeping force. But why send combat troops to a country that poses no significant threat to the United States in the first place? When a president feels it is necessary to handicap our military’s ability to respond to deadly force in a particular theater, then we probably shouldn’t send men with guns in the first place.
In an age of terrorism, I wholeheartedly support counterterrorism. There are plenty of people who not only feel divinely inspired to kill innocent Americans, but also seek to do so. They must be stopped. But when we go beyond intelligence and special operations – putting “boots on the ground” – there has to be a legitimate reason.
Did you know that members of the military are individuals of lesser “resources, breeding, or ambition”? Mande Wilkes, a former candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives thinks so, publishing this at FITSNEWS.COM on Sunday:
It used to be that everybody who was anybody enlisted in the military. Nowadays, everybody who’s nobody serves – a natural consequence of incentivizing service with signing bonuses, comped education, and plush pensions. Not to mention that for those in the U.S. illegally, the incentives are that much more attractive – a respectable way to root into jobs that wouldn’t otherwise be accessible.
So, what used to be a military made up of statesmen has devolved into a force comprised of men who have few alternatives but to enlist. Rather than the symbol of nobility it once was, military service has become almost a scarlet letter of sorts – signifying an individual of lesser resources, breeding, or ambition.
Wilkes’ platform: ” Individual liberty. Personal responsibility. Independence.” And labeling our troops a inferior mongrel breed of humans. I know the Islamists say we are descendants of apes and pigs, but it doesn’t have that same folksy charm coming from a Republican.
And plush pensions? Let’s break out the soldier effigies!
What Ms. Wilkes – and so many others who continue to dishonor our troops – miss is how rarely our troops commit atrocities. Well over 1 million Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (many serving multiple tours) over the last 10-plus years, and how many actual events have there been? The fact that we have to define atrocity down to “things done in poor taste” – like posing with dead insurgents – shows how honorable the men and women of our Armed Forces actually are.
Take two 18-year-old high school graduates: One joins the military and becomes a crew chief for a tens-of-millions-of-dollars helicopter after a few weeks of “basic” training. The other goes to college for the better part of a decade, staying on mom’s health insurance until the age 26, before collecting unemployment because the $100,000 white-collar non-profit jobs are all spoken for. The only “occupying” he is likely to do involves drum circles and smearing feces on cop cars.
All military officers have college degrees. And most enlisted personnel obtain a degree while they are serving. Many more get a degree after leaving the service. Who has more “resources” or ambition”?
Plus, the Department of Justice’s own crime statistics show that a veteran is 82% less likely to commit a crime than a civilian.
Wilkes’ message of calling those who have sacrificed so much in this war a bunch of mongrel nobodies would be better suited for a cave complex in Waziristan. Or in Chicago’s Hyde Park, if Bill Ayers was hosting. But it is downright disturbing when a self-proclaimed “conservative” from South Carolina is bashing our troops.
And if anyone deserves the “scarlet letter,” it’s the politicians, not the troops.
As discussed yesterday at The US Report, President Obama is peddling a jobs bill that contains elements that may actually be unconstitutional. But there appears to be more to the story.
The American Jobs Act states on page 133 (Section 176) that “A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution…”
This strips state sovereignty and increases dependence upon the Federal government. And if it were to pass, this legislation would open the door for trial lawyers to sue the states in Federal court. Just follow the money.
Here’s what the Eleventh Amendment says:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Basically, this amendment prevents the Federal government from hearing cases brought against a state by a citizen of another state or country. But Congress – and the states themselves if they so choose – can abrogate this Eleventh Amendment protection according to the Heritage Guide to the Constitution (pg. 376):
Congress can, for example, require the states to waive their immunities as a condition for receipt of federal grants under the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).
Why would the Federal government need to suspend the Constitution in order to save jobs? And when did the United States become so dependent on the government for jobs in the first place?
President Obama’s proposed abrogation of the Constitution may not actually violate the Constitution, since…
From The True Story Of The Builderberg Group by Daniel Estulin (pg. 150):
This campaign against the American people – against traditional American culture and values – is systematic psychological warfare. It is orchestrated by a vast array of interests comprising not only the Eastern establishment but also the radical left. Among this group, we find the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the money center banks and multinational corporations, the media, the educational establishment, the entertainment industry and the large tax-exempt foundations.
Mr. President, a careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these interests are working to create what some refer to as a New World Order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called New World Order in powerful business, financial, academic and official circles….
The influence of establishment insiders over our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time. This pervasive influence runs contrary to the real long-term national security of our Nation. It is an influence which, if unchecked, could ultimately subvert our constitutional order.
– Senator Jesse Helms, speaking on the Senate floor, Dec. 15, 1987
(Hat tip to Victory Institute analyst Judy Maxcy)
President Obama recently invited several NASCAR drivers to the White House to honor their accomplishments on the racetrack, but nearly half declined the invitation.
The invitees are the top finishers from NASCAR’s 2010 Sprint Cup. According to sbnation.com, which is sponsored by Sprint, drivers Greg Biffle, Carl Edwards, Kevin Harvick and Tony Stewart are not attending due to “schedule conflicts.”
Last year’s champion Jimmy Johnson will be attending however, along with Denny Hamlin, Jeff Gordon, Kyle Busch (who was originally among those not attending), Clint Bowyer, Jeff Burton and Matt Kenseth.
It is entirely likely that this is being over-politicized as NASCAR drivers do have an incredibly busy schedule: meeting with sponsors, fans, photo shoots (which is what Busch had to reschedule), and so on. There is really no off-season in this sport. The federal government has become an unwelcome part in all of our lives over the last few years, but (as of this writing) Uncle Sam is not the largest sponsor in auto racing (they are the largest landowner, healthcare provider, employer, broadband internet provider, etc.).
But that all could change if the Obama administration deems the racing industry “too big to fail.” Then we would no doubt see something like a $500 billion sponsorship of a race team claiming to run on solar power panels – only to go bankrupt in a matter of months. And by then we could hear Carl Edwards thank the ACORN/SEIU team for putting together a great car after winning the Daytona 500.
My advise to the four holdouts is remember “Joe the Plumber” – embarrass the President and dirty political goons will go through your past with a fine-tooth comb, looking for anything that can destroy you. Call your accountants and have them cross the t’s and dot the i’s. Maybe leave your calendar out in a highly visible location with “Meeting with George Soros” or “key Rush Limbaugh’s car” circled on the day of the White House event. Make a point to be seen in a Che Guevara shirt. Get a “Had enough? Vote Democrat” bumper sticker for your NASCAR.
Just in case.