I had some very articulate comments sent to me by readers of "Proud to be A Vietnam Vet?" I thought they were worth sharing:
I am torn between the knowledge that almost all service units have succumbed to Incredibly Advanced Tools, wielded by goom-bahs for the Undeclared Aristocracy and the knowledge that we are hopeless until the average person stops standing in an endless line with hand on heart chanting "We are So SPECIAL therefore were taking it all".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When one is 18-19 years old, with not a lot of future prospects, the call of the military can be compelling. The Pentagon, the media and the external propaganda (American Legion, public schools, politicians) are excellent devices to convince our children and grandchildren to want to wear a uniform and “be all they can be” (whatever that means). Please don’t blame the victims. As long as the American public keeps paying the taxes and doesn’t revolt, this arrogance will continue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last time that soldiers died defending their nation was the soldiers of the Confederate States of America. Before that, it was the Continental Army in 1776. All the other wars the US has been in have been unconstitutional...or at least stupid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We glory in the destruction of others and our own failures. We dare not question what we've been taught to worship. That's where all the "Semper Fi", " Keep'em Flying" and "Love it or Leave It" crap originates.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When [Jack Kerouac was] asked about why we were involved in the Viet Nam debacle, he answered “To sell jeeps”. Nothing more need be asked or known.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think of all the "whys" you presented often. I use the answers to great effect.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
One’s Man’s Experience With His Local Rulers
A reader passed on his recent experience with the local land/use property zoning commission. It illustrates the futility of rendering justice from a state that regulates itself:
We started out with "The Pledge". I can't swear fealty to a 3 color piece of cloth and the government so I avoided that part. I would swear to uphold the Constitution, though in my military experiences I really was only following orders to achieve a personal goal.
Any way, last night the county sent a bureaucrat to our township meeting to back up the township's claim to wanting control of the homeowners' property. I mentioned the 14th Amendment and that was poop-pooped by the officials. Then I explained that when I "own" my property but the government controls it, it is defined as fascism. No denial (most of the people don't know what the word means), only, "that's what government has to do.” I asked rhetorically if anyone at the meeting thought their property taxes were too low, directing the question to the township board members and the attending bureaucrat. No one defended the taxes they are paying as too low, all agreed with me that our taxes are too, too high. They still insisted we need more Central Planning. I asked about the collapse of the Soviet Union but no one seemed to understand the relationship between my question and the purpose of our meeting, except the bureaucrat.
The only thing I seem to be accomplishing is an internal agitation that causes me to lose sleep, probably affects my physical and mental health, and irritates some of my neighbors. We are not drifting towards socialism, we are running full speed into it's welcoming arms. Our educational system (for lack of a better word) has done a superb job in just a 100 years. Selfishly, I'm only glad I'm old. I won't have to put up with the BS as long as you youngsters.
Jack Darsnek
An Expatriate's Point of View by Capt. A.
Capt. A. , who lives in Europe, is a regular email correspondent who made a great response to my "The Military Lies" column. I thought it worth sharing with others:
Americans as a whole, inculcated in government-controlled school systems and tribal thought control groups, aren't about to change! I speak not only as a 26-year U.S. naval officer but also as a witness to some very egregious acts I personally witnessed while serving. I loathe and have great disdain not only for the U.S. military but the U.S. government as well. I left the U.S. nearly thirty-years ago to reside in Europe. (Mostly a socialistic hellhole). True, real freedom and liberty are achievable by degrees only in Switzerland, Monaco, Campione, Andorra and a handful of other venues (Very expensive!). The world as a whole is NOT free and I personally don't ever see people choosing such. Having traveled worldwide and witnessed first-hand, I see very little hope for the "iron fist" of governments to ever allow real freedom, liberty, private property rights and privacy to gain way. The yoke of subjugation is so real that the only real dilemma is how far an individual will wrap themselves in the blanket of "denial" to survive. Hypocrisy unfettered is patently available to all people who toil in patriotic flim-flam and government confidence games, and soon relegating personal responsibility to the dust bin.
You will continue to lose your "freedom and liberty" only now at an even greater rate. If you have children they too will be increasingly damned to live in America, a country that NEVER was truly free from its inception. Only "smart" people will seek out and defend their individual sovereignty. The rest will bask in government provided hell - that only non-thinking slaves could and will endure. I pity the poor bastards! C'est la guerre...
You are in the hands of the philistines, living in America. You already know this. So as Karl Mauldin used to say, "What will you do ... what WILL you do?"
And therein lays the real truth. Take care of yourself and the ones you care for -- and about.
Americans as a whole, inculcated in government-controlled school systems and tribal thought control groups, aren't about to change! I speak not only as a 26-year U.S. naval officer but also as a witness to some very egregious acts I personally witnessed while serving. I loathe and have great disdain not only for the U.S. military but the U.S. government as well. I left the U.S. nearly thirty-years ago to reside in Europe. (Mostly a socialistic hellhole). True, real freedom and liberty are achievable by degrees only in Switzerland, Monaco, Campione, Andorra and a handful of other venues (Very expensive!). The world as a whole is NOT free and I personally don't ever see people choosing such. Having traveled worldwide and witnessed first-hand, I see very little hope for the "iron fist" of governments to ever allow real freedom, liberty, private property rights and privacy to gain way. The yoke of subjugation is so real that the only real dilemma is how far an individual will wrap themselves in the blanket of "denial" to survive. Hypocrisy unfettered is patently available to all people who toil in patriotic flim-flam and government confidence games, and soon relegating personal responsibility to the dust bin.
You will continue to lose your "freedom and liberty" only now at an even greater rate. If you have children they too will be increasingly damned to live in America, a country that NEVER was truly free from its inception. Only "smart" people will seek out and defend their individual sovereignty. The rest will bask in government provided hell - that only non-thinking slaves could and will endure. I pity the poor bastards! C'est la guerre...
You are in the hands of the philistines, living in America. You already know this. So as Karl Mauldin used to say, "What will you do ... what WILL you do?"
And therein lays the real truth. Take care of yourself and the ones you care for -- and about.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Military Lies
Published today at LewRockwell.com:
Not exactly a bold, controversial statement, right? Even the most ardent supporter will agree that the military lies during its day-to-day mission of "defending" the country, in part to confuse the enemy de jour. But the far greater deceit lies in justifying the reasons for this organization’s mere existence.
My recent piece asked honest, logical questions disputing certain rationalizations pertaining to the military. The response from readers was overwhelmingly positive and the vast majority of those respondents were veterans! Among the small minority of dissenters, only a few made polite, thoughtful rebuttals. Not surprisingly, their arguments failed to convince me. However, their points did cause me to realize that the military’s claim of "defending my freedom" was not only untrue but an impossible task for the military to accomplish.
Military supporters certainly claim the organization "protects my freedom." Does the military make identical, documented claims? The Army sees itself as "protecting America’s freedoms at home and abroad, securing our homeland, and defending democracy worldwide." The Soldier’s Creed for the Army and Army National Guard claims "I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life."
The Airmen’s Creed for members of the Air Force maintains themselves to be a "Guardian of Freedom and Justice."
The Creed of a United States Marine seems more about a love affair with their rifle (their rifle is human?) than a claim of protecting anyone’s freedom. However, one of their numerous websites does explain the motto, "Semper Fidelis" and how "this phrase defines the honesty and dedication of the Marines for their work of protecting the U.S.A." The Marine’s recruiting literature also mentions their search for "men and women to join their organization who are ready to fight for their country and protect their people."
The Sailor’s Creed, for those in the Navy, remembers "those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world."
And let’s not forget the US Coast Guard whose stated mission includes "protecting" the public and boasts of it role in the Homeland Security apparatus.
Although their defense claims are rather broad, I think it can be accurately stated that the military professes to protect my person and my freedom. But is this reality?
Lie #1: The military protects your freedom.
Imagine that I have a conversation concerning this assertion with a member of the military or a supporter:
Militarist: "The military protects your freedom from those who would take it."
Me: "I disagree. More and more of my freedoms are disappearing through actions initiated by the government that claims to represent me." [Numerous examples are given including illegal assaults by state and federal law enforcement, denial of habeas corpus, spying on American citizens, being searched without warrant or probable cause at airports, etc.]"
Militarist: "I stay very well informed on such matters and I agree – many areas of the government have overstepped their constitutional authority and damaged or taken some of your freedoms. However, the military did not take those illegal actions. Other areas of the government did."
Me: "Agreed. But earlier you claimed, unequivocally, that the military protects my freedom. You have agreed with my assertion that my freedoms are quickly disappearing. Therefore I can conclude that the military, despite their claims to the contrary, is not protecting my freedom. The military may not have the authority to counter other rogue elements of the government that threaten my freedom, but that fact is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that my freedom is not being protected and you claim the military is protecting my freedom. I’m not so much upset that the military can‘t (through legal restrictions) defend my freedom as I am that they claim they do protect my freedom. When the military claims to protect my freedom they do so without listing any qualifiers or exceptions. Therefore, the military and its supporters are promoting a lie."
Lie #2: The military protects and defends the US Constitution
Again, imagine that I have a conversation concerning this assertion with a member of the military or a supporter:
Militarist: "The military protects and defends the US Constitution in obedience to its member’s pledge to defend it "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Me: "I disagree. Many areas of the government have damaged, taken, and continue to threaten my liberties guaranteed under the US Constitution. You have previously agreed to this claim. But the military makes no effort to protect or rectify these abuses. It cannot do so because it lacks the legal authority to interfere in the activities of other areas of the government. Yet, the military claims it does protect the US Constitution and therefore protects the individuals safeguarded by that document. Clearly, as these examples prove, the military does not and can not. The military is telling a lie."
"In addition, the military continues to execute acts of war against other states without the declaration of war required for such action by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. By doing so, the military actively participates in an illegal, unconstitutional action. How can the military be defending the Constitution at the same time it is actively violating it? The military may be excused for not having the authority to question or refuse participation in such illegal actions. It is, in effect, impotent. But by not having this authority to refuse participation it is clearly unable to take steps that would stop such an action. The military claims to defend the Constitution without offering any qualifiers or exceptions. Therefore, this unequivocal, categorical claim is a lie."
"To top it off, members of the US military swear an oath to defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic." They obviously violate this oath for the reasons stated above. Strict Constitutionalists may consider this offense "treasonous." More importantly, this fact exposes one of the weaknesses of such a document. Members of the US military swear an oath to defend a rule of law (the US Constitution) even though they don’t have the Constitutional authority (in many cases) to defend it! How bizarre is that?"
Conclusion
The military does not and cannot, protect my freedom. It is in fact a threat to my freedom by protecting or ignoring those "domestic enemies" from which they claim to protect me. It is a threat to my freedom by claiming it protects me when it does not even have the authority to defend me from the most immediate threats; those of the "domestic" variety originating from numerous areas of the federal government. The military is a threat to my freedom by protecting and defending that very entity that is the greatest danger to my safety and freedom – the United States Federal Government and the regime that controls it. There is no "foreign" threat that can equal it, particularly since so many perceived foreign threats wind up being manufactured. Personally, I have more faith in the protection offered by two large oceans than a trillion dollar/year "defense" agency that can’t protect its own building.
To some, my analysis may be viewed as nit picking. But I refuse to apologize for demanding accountability from an organization that fraudulently claims to provide a service while pointing a gun to my head forcing me to finance it.
Why don’t the military and its supporters revise their claim to, "The military "tries to protect your freedom?" Such a statement might actually be grounded in honesty, though no more convincing than the original claim. Or how about, "The military protects your freedom when it is legally allowed to do so?" Somehow, that statement just does not have the sound-bite simplicity necessary to excite supporters, reassure the masses and continue the deception.
Knowing that the military and its supporters can be proud of failure (despite any valid excuses), they should have no problem taking pride in the fact that they "tried." However, if they have tried and still failed, how does that benefit me?
And please, cease and desist the strident demands that I be "grateful."
Not exactly a bold, controversial statement, right? Even the most ardent supporter will agree that the military lies during its day-to-day mission of "defending" the country, in part to confuse the enemy de jour. But the far greater deceit lies in justifying the reasons for this organization’s mere existence.
My recent piece asked honest, logical questions disputing certain rationalizations pertaining to the military. The response from readers was overwhelmingly positive and the vast majority of those respondents were veterans! Among the small minority of dissenters, only a few made polite, thoughtful rebuttals. Not surprisingly, their arguments failed to convince me. However, their points did cause me to realize that the military’s claim of "defending my freedom" was not only untrue but an impossible task for the military to accomplish.
Military supporters certainly claim the organization "protects my freedom." Does the military make identical, documented claims? The Army sees itself as "protecting America’s freedoms at home and abroad, securing our homeland, and defending democracy worldwide." The Soldier’s Creed for the Army and Army National Guard claims "I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life."
The Airmen’s Creed for members of the Air Force maintains themselves to be a "Guardian of Freedom and Justice."
The Creed of a United States Marine seems more about a love affair with their rifle (their rifle is human?) than a claim of protecting anyone’s freedom. However, one of their numerous websites does explain the motto, "Semper Fidelis" and how "this phrase defines the honesty and dedication of the Marines for their work of protecting the U.S.A." The Marine’s recruiting literature also mentions their search for "men and women to join their organization who are ready to fight for their country and protect their people."
The Sailor’s Creed, for those in the Navy, remembers "those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world."
And let’s not forget the US Coast Guard whose stated mission includes "protecting" the public and boasts of it role in the Homeland Security apparatus.
Although their defense claims are rather broad, I think it can be accurately stated that the military professes to protect my person and my freedom. But is this reality?
Lie #1: The military protects your freedom.
Imagine that I have a conversation concerning this assertion with a member of the military or a supporter:
Militarist: "The military protects your freedom from those who would take it."
Me: "I disagree. More and more of my freedoms are disappearing through actions initiated by the government that claims to represent me." [Numerous examples are given including illegal assaults by state and federal law enforcement, denial of habeas corpus, spying on American citizens, being searched without warrant or probable cause at airports, etc.]"
Militarist: "I stay very well informed on such matters and I agree – many areas of the government have overstepped their constitutional authority and damaged or taken some of your freedoms. However, the military did not take those illegal actions. Other areas of the government did."
Me: "Agreed. But earlier you claimed, unequivocally, that the military protects my freedom. You have agreed with my assertion that my freedoms are quickly disappearing. Therefore I can conclude that the military, despite their claims to the contrary, is not protecting my freedom. The military may not have the authority to counter other rogue elements of the government that threaten my freedom, but that fact is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that my freedom is not being protected and you claim the military is protecting my freedom. I’m not so much upset that the military can‘t (through legal restrictions) defend my freedom as I am that they claim they do protect my freedom. When the military claims to protect my freedom they do so without listing any qualifiers or exceptions. Therefore, the military and its supporters are promoting a lie."
Lie #2: The military protects and defends the US Constitution
Again, imagine that I have a conversation concerning this assertion with a member of the military or a supporter:
Militarist: "The military protects and defends the US Constitution in obedience to its member’s pledge to defend it "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Me: "I disagree. Many areas of the government have damaged, taken, and continue to threaten my liberties guaranteed under the US Constitution. You have previously agreed to this claim. But the military makes no effort to protect or rectify these abuses. It cannot do so because it lacks the legal authority to interfere in the activities of other areas of the government. Yet, the military claims it does protect the US Constitution and therefore protects the individuals safeguarded by that document. Clearly, as these examples prove, the military does not and can not. The military is telling a lie."
"In addition, the military continues to execute acts of war against other states without the declaration of war required for such action by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. By doing so, the military actively participates in an illegal, unconstitutional action. How can the military be defending the Constitution at the same time it is actively violating it? The military may be excused for not having the authority to question or refuse participation in such illegal actions. It is, in effect, impotent. But by not having this authority to refuse participation it is clearly unable to take steps that would stop such an action. The military claims to defend the Constitution without offering any qualifiers or exceptions. Therefore, this unequivocal, categorical claim is a lie."
"To top it off, members of the US military swear an oath to defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic." They obviously violate this oath for the reasons stated above. Strict Constitutionalists may consider this offense "treasonous." More importantly, this fact exposes one of the weaknesses of such a document. Members of the US military swear an oath to defend a rule of law (the US Constitution) even though they don’t have the Constitutional authority (in many cases) to defend it! How bizarre is that?"
Conclusion
The military does not and cannot, protect my freedom. It is in fact a threat to my freedom by protecting or ignoring those "domestic enemies" from which they claim to protect me. It is a threat to my freedom by claiming it protects me when it does not even have the authority to defend me from the most immediate threats; those of the "domestic" variety originating from numerous areas of the federal government. The military is a threat to my freedom by protecting and defending that very entity that is the greatest danger to my safety and freedom – the United States Federal Government and the regime that controls it. There is no "foreign" threat that can equal it, particularly since so many perceived foreign threats wind up being manufactured. Personally, I have more faith in the protection offered by two large oceans than a trillion dollar/year "defense" agency that can’t protect its own building.
To some, my analysis may be viewed as nit picking. But I refuse to apologize for demanding accountability from an organization that fraudulently claims to provide a service while pointing a gun to my head forcing me to finance it.
Why don’t the military and its supporters revise their claim to, "The military "tries to protect your freedom?" Such a statement might actually be grounded in honesty, though no more convincing than the original claim. Or how about, "The military protects your freedom when it is legally allowed to do so?" Somehow, that statement just does not have the sound-bite simplicity necessary to excite supporters, reassure the masses and continue the deception.
Knowing that the military and its supporters can be proud of failure (despite any valid excuses), they should have no problem taking pride in the fact that they "tried." However, if they have tried and still failed, how does that benefit me?
And please, cease and desist the strident demands that I be "grateful."
Monday, August 4, 2008
It's All About Revenge
The widow of an Irving, TX policeman, shot and killed by a burglary suspect, is asking other officers to attend the murderer’s execution. And she’s asking them to make sure to wear their uniforms! I can assume she feels this show of gang force will make some kind of impression on the condemned and anyone else paying attention to the execution. The obligatory reference to “closure” is made indicating the state-sponsored murder of a murderer somehow brings psychological and emotional relief to friends and family of the victim. There’s a word for this type of action. It’s called revenge.
What about the Christian spirit of forgiveness? Why the demand of revenge, particularly from those who would never themselves actively carry out such an act? But they see nothing wrong with the state doing their dirty work for them.
Since the policy of the US justice system is based on retribution rather than restitution, victims may able be to argue that there is no other avenue to pursue closure than outright revenge. And this is considered a civilized system of justice?
Meanwhile, an Ohio policeman is found innocent of murder while executing the useless War On Some Drugs.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Quotes of the Week
From the Light:
“A generation that barely discerns between Bambi and actual rutting deer can’t be expected to distinguish charisma from substance.”
Garry Reed, describing Obama’s youthful supporterss
"The truth is that the State must hide not only its wars but all of its activities. It hides its inflation. It hides the effects of its taxation and its protectionism. It fears anyone who draws the cause-and-effect connection between its activities and their deleterious consequences for the rest of us. It is the most destructive force in our world. Because that truth is so momentous, the State does everything possible to hide the smallest drop of blood."
Lew Rockwell
From the Darkness:
"Iraq and Afghanistan remain the central fronts in the struggle, but we cannot lose sight of the implications of fighting a long-term, episodic, multi-front, and multi-dimensional conflict more complex and diverse than the Cold War confrontation with communism."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)