... Some Gave All

US Military Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer, France. On the bluffs overlooking Omaha Beach, Normandy, contains the remains of 9,387 American military dead, most of whom were killed during the invasion of Normandy and ensuing military operations in World War II. The graves face westward, towards the United States. Strangely, nobody considered such numbers of dead to be indicative of a "quagmire" or called for the withdrawal of US forces prematurely.


BG Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. didn't have to be on the Normandy Beaches... but he knew it was the right place to be.

All photos Copyright (C) 2004 Todd A. Mercer. All Rights Reserved

“Greater love hath no man than this, that he give his life for his friends.” – John, 15:13

The drum rolls.

The marching boots kick up the dust of countless trails.

They marched toward the sound of the cannon.

They marched with fear gnawing at them, wondering if the next step would be the last.

Wondering if they would make it home to see their child, their wife, their mom and dad.

The fear was almost debilitating.

Yet, they marched on, the fear of letting down their buddies overcoming their personal dread.

The toll:

Spanish-American War(1903): 2,446 dead

World War I( 1917-18): 116,516 dead

World War II (1941-46): 405,399

Korean War(1950-53: 36,574

Vietnam War(1964-75): 58,209

Iranian Hostage Rescue (1979): 8

Lebanon Peacekeeping (1982-84): 265

Urgent Fury, Grenada (1983): 19

Just Cause, Panama (1989): 23

Persian Gulf War(1991-92): 383

Restore Hope, Somalia (1992-94): 43

Uphold Democracy, Haiti (1994-96): 4

Global War on Terror (2001-current): approaching 5000

In the 20th Century and the first decade of the 21st, over 625, 000 American servicemen and women paid the ultimate price in combat. (Source: Congressional Research Service)

How many potential Nobel laureates were among those numbers? How many scientists that would discover medical cures; artists who would inspire and awe. How many who would discover things to make our lives better, longer or more meaningful?

It is meaningless to analyze (as some have anyway) the demographic breakout of those who died. The races, religions, genders, economic strata they came from. In death, they are equally exalted as heroes, regardless of their background. They gave their last full measure of devotion for our country and our way of life.

More importantly, how does a nation honor such heroes?

In the United States of America, we set aside the last Monday in May as Memorial Day to honor and commemorate those that paid the ultimate price for our freedom. One day in 365. It hardly seems enough.

But we are a nation of short attention spans, and shallower knowledge of history, by and large. Even that one day a year all too often becomes an excuse for a party, or the first trip to the beach, or a trip to the mall. How many of our countrymen don't even realize what the holiday is really for?

Sad. Disrespectful. Dishonorable.

But perhaps, just perhaps, through no true reasoning or fault of their own... the oblivious masses and the rest of us who show such little respect and admiration for what they sacrificed for us are the penultimate honor and tribute to their devotion.

That we can go about our lives, generally free of fear from tyranny and oppression. That we can take off from work whole weekends and weeks. That we can travel freely throughout our country, and indeed through much of the world. That we have the ability and freedom to work where we want, study at a college of our choice, spend our incomes on the material things we want... actually speaks volumes about the sacrifices made on our behalf.

These 625,000 men and women; predominately young and with their whole lives in front of them; traded their tomorrows so that we can wallow in our oblivious lives, enjoying our today's and planning for our own tomorrows. In their deaths, they displayed the pure, unadulterated love of country and their fellow countrymen that only such sacrifices reveal.

General George S. Patton, Jr. once said "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived."

Is it a shame that we don't better and more fully honor those that gave up all their tomorrows? Absolutely, it is. But maybe in some small measure, we are still honoring them by just living.

So, in living our lives, perhaps we are indeed celebrating Memorial Day every day.

Happy Memorial Day, my fellow citizens. Freedom is not free.

CP

All Gave Some...

Memorial Day weekend. 2008

Amidst all the barbeque's, parties and "big box" store sales, almost in spite of the 4-day weekend most Americans get to take, there is a holiday that is meant to commemorate the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have died while answered their country's call to arms.

Officially, the holiday commemorates U.S. men and women who perished while in military service to their country. First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War, it was expanded after World War I to include casualties of any war or military action. Over time, it has come to also honor all those who marched off to war, and maybe even to a larger extent, those who served in any capacity to support a war effort. To be sure, all the "Rosie the Riveters" who manned America's assembly lines when the men went off to fight can take justifiable pride in their accomplishments, this weekend more than most. Freedom's fought for and won in numerous ways.

But to be sure, the holiday is first and foremost about those who died in the defense of America and America's freedoms.

Growing up, even in the midst of the Vietnam conflict, when I thought of Memorial Day, I thought of WWII's veterans. The greatest generation. I forget how old I was, but I'm sure not too old, when I realized with some amazement that my own father was among that generation, among that cohort. The man whom I knew as a fairly nondescript salesman and manager, father, husband, golfer and bowler... braved the flak-filled skies over Europe as a tail gunner in a B-26 medium bomber.

As most of that generation, he didn't (and doesn't) talk much about the war. Even getting small tidbits out of him took years. He preferred to be known for his accomplishments after coming home: college, family, sending his only child off to college. But, I'm sure also that the war experience defined him as much as anything he did, before or since.

Official reports from the Veterans Administration, among other agencies, tell us that the WWII veterans, once so many, are leaving us at the rate of 1500 each day. WWI veterans are all but gone, perhaps one or two still alive in America. Korean and Vietnam War vets are still plentiful, but they too are creeping toward old age. Grenada, Panama, Operation Desert Storm; these veterans too answered America's call and while fairly small in number, still represent the notion that America is worth defending.

Of course, we are currently growing a new cohort of war casualties and veterans. Citizen soldiers who have marched off to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are now joining their fathers, grandfathers, uncles and older brothers in the ranks of those we should memorialize this weekend. Sadly, over 4000 have joined the heroic ghosts of Arlington National Cemetery and other cemeteries around the country.

Anti-war protesters naively protest against particular wars, or any war. The City of Berkley, California, and others, make it nearly impossible for military recruiters to do their all important job of gaining new recruits for our all-volunteer military. College campuses around the nation happily take federal grant dollars, even in some cases to work on military-related projects, but steadfastly refuse to allow recruiters or ROTC on the campus. The underlying belief seems to be that if America doesn't have a military, it won't get into any wars.

How naive.

To paraphrase a common quote, "these people are free to carry on their silly protests, are free to go to the Memorial Day sales, free to picnic and party with their friends and take Monday off from work, because patriots still stand ready to visit violence upon those around the world who hate us for our liberties and tolerance." And make no mistake: there is no shortage of those who viscerally hate the USA and all we stand for. The only thing that keeps the hounds at bay is the fear of our military. If we ever loose that, we loose all.

Canadian singer-song writer Terry Kelly put together a great song, and video, several years ago that really cuts to the point. See the video here. Read the back story to why he wrote it, here.

Happy Memorial Day my fellow citizens. Sleep well.

CP

The 545 that cause our problems

A friend recently sent me one of his regular emails, that included the below gem. It is perported to be written by a former columnist for a Florida paper. I don't know if it was or not, but regardless, it pretty succinctly captures a key element of the problems we face.

Charley Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper (April 22, 2008). This is the simplest, most understandable and truest explanation of the woes of the nation and who caused them, as well as how to cure them. This should be sent to every person in the United States, including the '545'.

545 People By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against
deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President and nine Supreme Court justices: 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to
provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he or she votes.

These 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.

They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of the Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the
House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want.

If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545
people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq. The President cannot unilaterally declare war. The President needs the approval of Congress, as well as the budget from Congress to continue a war.

If they do not receive Social Security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

These 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Now, with the above said, I find it interesting that Congress is currently "enjoying" an extremely low favorability in terms of consistently bad polls. Everyone seems to think Congress is doing a poor job as a group. All the congressmen should be replaced. All, that is, except for each respondant's own congressman and Senators. They, it seem, are doing a pretty good job.

Tip O'Neil used to say that "all politics are local". Our current crop of employees in Washington have perfected the game of "buying" their constituents with the "earmarks" that used to be called "Pork", and thus they keep their jobs. Each of them only has to keep their own constituents happy, and they do that with tax dollars. What a racket!

Sure makes a great case for "Term Limits", doesn't it?

CP

Character and Integrity on the Campaign Trail

Back in 1992, one of the (Bill) Clinton campaign's slogans was "It's the economy, Stupid".

While in 1992, the economy was important, and in 2008 it is again, the true underpinning of our presidential elections should be"Its about Character, Stupid".

Lets face it. Any US President can gather around him world-class advisers on any subject. He can reach out to any source for expert advice. There is no shortage of people grovelling at a President's door to be an aide, cabinet member or other advisor.

But, what a President can't gather around him, and can't buy, is Character and Integrity. A President provides vision and direction. The government executes. He isn't in there working on the tax code or health care... others are doing that on his behalf, within the vision he sets forth for the task.

Recent statements by both Obama and (Hillary) Clinton call both of their integrity's and characters into question. Hillary with her several lies about her "experience" as the spouse of a president. The Sniper-fire lie, etc. Obama has struggled to keep people from seeing his character flaws too. The association with an unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist and a 20-year association with a racist reverend, call into question his sense of right and wrong, his integrity and ultimately his character.

A friend sent me the following article that discusses Obama's short association with the truth better than I ever could... and again highlights his problems with character and integrity.

Say What, Barrack?

By Paul R. Hollrah

Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a black church in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any indication, the new "Schlickmeister" of the Democrat Party is actually a pretty ccomplished public speaker.

However, as he spoke, I found my b.s. alarm going off, repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's part of what he said:

"...something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.

"When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

"So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great- grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child.

There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. Was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma , Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good. But is it?

Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child.

The problem with that characterization is that Barrack Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met.

Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to America.

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having invented the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest, even though she was born five years a and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John Kerry's imaginary trip to Cambodia.

As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince."

That obviously smart and learned people such as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton would make such egregiously inaccurate statements talks to more than their inaccurate memory or knowledge. It talks to their belief that the average American is so historically illiterate that they will believe whatever they are told, and never validate it. Remember, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propagandist, liked to say that if you tell a big lie often enough, most people will believe it. Barrack and Hillary have learned this lesson well!

Nobody can steal or otherwise take your integrity away from you. Only you can give it away. What does it say about those who seek to lead us if they do so by giving away their integrity?

CP

Stealth Attack to gain Amnesty for Criminal Immigrants

Last year, I kicked off this blog for a number of reasons. A big one was to discuss the criminal immigrant situaiton, and the horrible political plans to deal with it.

Back then, a majority of Americans came together and voiced their displeasure at what our politicians were intending to do: grant amnesty in one form or other to a bunch of people in our country illegally. In other words, law breakers.

Well, right now, the Senate is debating the most recent spending authorization for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regardless of how you feel about the wars, and I unabashedly support them, I think it is just dead wrong to attach amnesty (or anything not related to spending for the war) to this bill. Our policians on both sides of the isle, are loading this bill with pork and other spending. And, apparently they are pushing ahead with the hope that most Americans won't notice or will notice too late.

This wouldn't happen if the "Read the Bills" legislation were the law of the land. This legislation would mandate that our elected officials actually read the bills, and that they would be posed on the web for 7 days so we lowly citizens could read it, too.

But, that is not now the case.

Still, we citizens can once again mobilize to tell our employees in congress that WE STILL SAY NO TO AMNESTY FOR THOSE IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Period.

I urge you to call your Senator's office now. Have all your relatives and friends do the same. Remind them you will not forget them at the ballot box if they go against the will of the people.

You can find their contact information by clicking here: US Senate.

This webpage has more detail about what is going on in Washington as I type this. I urge you to check it out.

For me, it is as simple as this: Our elected officials have sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of our land. Criminal immigrants are, by definition, illegally in our country. They broke the law to come in, and continue to break it every day they stay. There is no way our elected officials can morally or ethically reconcile that with support for amnesty. WE SHOULDN'T LET THEM TRY! Get involved. If this bill goes through with these attachments, the President should be supported in a VETO.

CP

To write a blank check

A US Military veteran, regardless of length of service, period of service, and whether or not he/she ever heard a shot fired in anger, is one who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The People of the United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

--- Received recently in an email. Hat-tip to SD

That pecular American Way of selecting our leadership

The political process by which we Americans whittle down the many candidates to the two individuals who will represent each of the two major parties had been on display this season for all the world to wonder at.

Living in Europe as I currently am, I am amazed at the interest that my European colleagues have taken in the candidates. They've been keenly interested, and asked me many probing questions about the process. It has forced me to pay more attention to my own country's process for determining who will be the next leader we call "Commander-in-Chief".

I had previously thought that the push for many states to move their primaries earlier in the year was a bad thing. I felt it would truncate an already too-short opportunity to really learn what the candidates are about before they are running a "national" campaign. Only in the primary season, I reasoned, were candidates accessible by the public. Thanks to our national media, what a candidate answers to a question in Iowa no longer stays in Iowa, but is transmitted around the nation and reported on (sometimes ad nauseum). But that is good, because the answer in our global economy is relevant in Hawaii and Alaska and Florida and New York, too.

Gone are the days when politicians can routinely get away with telling different audiences conflicting things because that is what they want to hear. Remember Obama's San Francisco comments about Pennsylvania religious gun owners!

Here are some suggestions on how to further improve the process with the goal of really finding the best candidates for President... not just the most electable. And, along the way, likely generating some truly revolutionary solutions to the problems of our times:

1. Get rid of the "Super Delegates" the Democrats are using. From the party that whined so loudly about the Electoral College win that put George Bush in the White House in 2000 (but, gee, Al won the popular vote, it isn't fair!) it seems awfully strange and counter to democratic principles to have folks that are unaccountable to the voters be able to make the decision. True, at this point, it looks like they will follow the general will of the voters of their respective states... but they don't have to. And who knows if the Clinton machine has something that will swing them all to Hillary's camp at the last minute? Leave it to the voters entirely!

2. The GOP should adopt a similar proportional system as the Democrats are using. "Winner takes all" shouldn't be the case for the primaries (nor, really, for the general election, in my opinion). I'm not saying to go straight with the popular vote, however. It should be based on the congressional districts. If a district is won by a candidate, that candidate gets the district's affiliated delegates. The overall winner of the state then gets two "at large" delegates as well.

3. Keep the results of each state's primary or caucus secret until the convention. This would keep each candidate fully engaged in the process through the end. Each state would be relevant, regardless of if it was the first or last state, since neither campaign would be sure of who was leading or trailing, and what the delegate count was.

4. Return to the time when the conventions were actually working sessions that hammered out compromises and the party's platform, not just coronation ceremonies for the "anointed one".

5. Return to teaching what used to be called "civics" in school, so that our voters understand what a president (or US Representative, or Senator, or Governor) can and can't do. While we are at it, teach basic economics too, so our citizens realize that the the government can't pay for every desire without taking that money from someone's pocket... and what the effect of that would be.

This primary season has been a surprise for me in a number of ways. I fear that too many of our citizens view the presidential races like a blood sport, however, instead of the very serious task of choosing our next President. My suggestions would return the serious purpose and remove some of the sport-like qualities of the contest. But in the end, it will be about winning, hopefully America winning by electing the very best candidate from the crop.

CP

Gaming American Politics

With the Presidential primary season dragging into its 5th month of actual voting and caucusing, many of the pundits and commentators have increasingly called it the "never ending" campaign.

Republicans have all but nominated John McCain... waiting only for the GOP convention to make it official. But, nobody is seriously challenging him on the Republican side, and he is campaigning nationally now as the de facto Republican Candidate... enjoying a window of opportunity whilst the Democrats continue their slug-fest primaries.

Ah, the Democrats. Despite the math, Hillary continues to campaign. Obama seems to be increasingly frustrated by her refusal to bow out. Many voices in the Democratic party have been calling on her for over a month to throw in the towel... "for the good of the party".

And, they are right, if the objective is only to elect a Democrat in November.

But, I hold that the real objective is to determine who the best candidate for President is. Not just the most electable. I think all primaries, both GOP and Democrat, should go all the way to the convention. I believe that way is the only way for truly revolutionary ideas about our way forward as a nation will form and percolate to the top of the rhetoric.

What we are seeing in the Democratic drama, is the nation gleaning from each candidate who they really are, and what they really stand for. The long, long electoral season is allowing us, the consumers of politics, to pull away the curtains of polished sound bites and key messages, and see how each deals with issues that shed light on their character. The Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, the unpaid bills by the Clinton Campaign, the Weatherman friends and all the missteps by Bill Clinton all are indicators... they shed light on the character of the candidates and imply elements of each's character.

Moreover, with the elongated primary season, the liberal media is finding it increasingly difficult to avoid actually looking at the candidates' records in congress and elsewhere, and compare (and contrast) it with the rhetoric they are providing. This, too, shines a very needed light on their character and what they truly believe. Heck, anybody can say anything, and a good liar will make you believe it. But to gauge if it is true, look at what someone has actually done and said over time.

Or, believe the used car salesman and drive away in a lemon.

Over the last few years, as states scrambled to move their primary and caucus dates earlier and earlier, I thought it was a bad move. I thought it would further limit the opportunity for candidates to be close and personal with the electorate. It would limit the town-hall meeting format of campaigning and reduce our elections to very long ad campaign seasons, talking heads without any dialog, questions and answers.

At least for this election cycle I was wrong. It has actually caused states and territories (Guam) to truly have a voice in the process. Many of these states were no longer relevant in primaries past... the race had already been decided by the time their turn came. I'm glad they have had a chance this year... I believe it makes the process better and more revealing.

This has been a truly interesting primary season, especially on the Democratic side. And it ain't over yet. I salute Hillary for not giving in, for continuing to slug it out. It may be a futile effort as far as her candidacy goes, but I believe it is the right thing for our republic and democracy in general.

That's how I see it.

CP