First, disclaimer #1: the following comments and opinion are neither indorsed by, nor reflect the policies of the US Government, the Dept of Defense, CENTCOM, ISAF, USACE, CJTF82 or any other pencil-necked bureaucrat involved with the conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Secondly, disclaimer #2: I work 10 hours a day, 6 1/2 days a week in a basement, with a narrow focus on a variety of relatively small construction projects in Central and North East Afghanistan – so I don’t know jack about either the actual strategic or tactical status of the conduct of the war, besides what I read in the same sources the rest of you do.

But here’s what I do know. There are two structural weaknesses, fundamental failures in fact, which will prevent success (notice I didn’t use the word ‘victory’ – a concept which seems to be foreign to the highest levels of our government). First, it is the policy of the State Department that the primacy of a strong central Afghan government in Kabul takes precedence over the desires of the Afghans who make up the outlying provinces and the many tribes who populate the provinces. That concept has never worked in the past for Afghanistan. The top-down rule by out-of-touch elites is not working out even in the US right now; how much more then, will a tribesman in Paktika or Nuristan Province resist such an arrangement? The military folks in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) and the Special Operations personnel who are out in the provinces working with the tribes have the real word experience to know what approach will bring success, but their methods are either being ignored or undermined.

The other structural shortcoming is the fact that GEN McChrystal, the overall commander in Afghanistan, and the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, former GEN Eikenberry – do not see eye to eye on the proper methods to conduct the war. This is in contrast to the excellent working relationship GEN Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker enjoyed during the time of the surge in Iraq. Both those men were on the same page as to the strategy required to win in Iraq, and in their dealings with Iraqi leaders. That is not the case here in Afghanistan. Apparently, GEN McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry agree on very little, and that has been the case since at least the time GEN McChrystal first proposed his version of a surge in Afghanistan. These men are unequally yoked for this mission, and President Obama set it up that way – because he knew from the beginning their differences when he put them in their positions.

There you have it, my two cents worth. Investigate and judge for yourself if what I have said is in fact the case. I’m just a retired 1SG sitting in a Kabul basement all day. I don’t know jack.

The latest example is the President’s new-found concern for the middle class.  The news reports cited a list of possible efforts (I’ll call them bribes) targeted towards the middle class meant to give the appearance of economic relief.  At the top of the list was doubling the child tax credit for those making less than $85,000 a year.  These schemes are just nibbling around the edges, and offer no real long term solutions to our economy.  On PBS a few minutes ago, even Robert Reich didn’t seem to be very impressed.  The only solution that has a track record is cut taxes and federal spending.  Only two Democrats in my memory have achieved any success at this – JFK and Clinton.  Clinton, BTW, would not have gotten the distinction if not forced into limiting taxes & spending by a Republican-led Congress.

As a preface to presenting this bribe, President Obama himself uttered the words “the middle class is under attack”.  Well, yeah!  Under attack from the administration’s own economic and social policies.  But here’s the thing, it’s not just the middle class – it’s the whole spectrum of society that is suffering to some extent from Democratic economic policies.  Sure, some are better able to absorb the pain, but lets not forget we are all in this (the rising tides and boats analogy).  I’m not going to fall for any form of class warfare pandering, nor will I be placated by any short-term fix that distracts my attention from what will really solve the economic problems we have.  Don’t let Obama throw you a bone to distract you, and don’t let your attention be averted by something shiny.  But then, the average RS reader is too smart for that.

 …most every time you turn around inside the terror universe, you trip over the Iranians

In his article, found here:

 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTQzMGNmM2RiZDUzNmM3YTYyZjAzZjY0NzBlMWMwMDg= 

Ledeen covers a few of the areas of Iranian involvement which few people with any influence seem to be concerned about.  Things like Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas.  More importantly to our immediate interests, however, he reminds us about the Quds Force involvement in the attack, capture, and murder of five US soldiers in Karbala in 2007.  The Quds Force, remember, is the elite arm of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.  The focus of Ledeen’s article was not on the panoply of terror events associated with the Iranians, though.  If it had been, it would have touched on the Iranian fingerprints on the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole attack, and the attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  Of immediate note to those of us deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, is a type of IED called the EFP (explosively formed penetrator).  There is much speculation that many of this type of IED has its origins in Iran; if not materially, then at least by technology transfer from Iranian trainers.

Iran has been at war with us since 1979 and the take-over of the embassy in Tehran.  Their agents have assassinated Iran’s political enemies on our soil, as well as all over the world. (see  http://iranhrdc.org/httpdocs/English/pdfs/Reports/No-Safe-Haven_May08.pdf)   The Iranian regime in place since the return of Ayatollah Khomeini has not rested in its quest to undermine and eventually overcome what they perceive as our hegemony over the world as “The Great Satan”.  This is a war the Iranians are very dedicated to, but one only a few of us seem to recognize.

With this in mind, what are the dangers inherent in the interface between a leftist U.S. president and his administration with the president of Iran?  A man who was present at the takeover of our embassy, and has vowed the destruction of Israel and the neutralization of U.S. power.  Few have a very clear understanding of Iran’s level of sophistication with regard to their master plan to dominate globally.  All we have to do is pay attention to what they say; they are not shy about voicing their opinions, plans, and world-view.  Amir Taheri’s article today is an eye-opener: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_iran_might_talk_with_bam_wquLcVNNBNKND6poL7JSFN

Not since we faced the former Soviet Union during the Cold War have we faced an enemy so dedicated to oppose and defeat us, with a global reach and global associations with like-minded allies to enable just such an endeavor.  Iran is currently forging economic ties in our hemisphere with Venezuela (to overcome its shortages in gasoline), military ties can’t be far behind.  As opposed to the USSR’s political ideology, Iran’s is religious – a category of hostile ideology we are unprepared to fight.  We need to become more familiar with Charles Martel, John Sobieski, and yes, even Vlad Tepes.

Iran has increased the number of centrifuges working towards sufficient material for a nuclear weapon.  This from a ‘bipartisan’ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574402583170409334.html

The centrifuges at Natanz continue spinning. At its current pace, Iran’s nuclear program will be able to manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2010. A nuclear-armed Iran would not only pose a security threat to the U.S. and its allies. It would embolden Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups, destabilize the region, upset global energy markets, and spark a wave of proliferation across the Middle East. Moreover, if we do not act quickly and credibly to address this threat, we run the very real risk of Israel taking matters into its own hands.

 One of the topics to be brought up by our president as he makes history as the first U.S. president to preside over a session of the UN Security Council on 23 September is nuclear disarmament.  As apologetic as he has been in his global visits this year, I expect him to offer unilateral disarmament as a good will gesture.  Mind you, he is changing the original agenda at this session; and Ahmadinejad is savvy enough to take advantage of this opportunity for his own purposes.  http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDI0Y2ZkMWU3NDdjMWI0NzFjMzNkZDlmNTk2YTI5ZDI=

Do you think it wise that our president enter into discussions with the president of Iran and address the UN regarding nuclear weapons?  Do you trust him to protect our interests and keep us protected against our self-identified enemies?  Do you think the average citizen is paying attention?

President Barack Obama must decide in coming weeks whether a greater investment of troops and resources in Afghanistan is worth the political risk if Americans do not soon perceive better results on the ground.

Your guess is as good as mine whether DeYoung is more worried about Obama’s level of political risk than the president himself.  The audacity and poor taste to even bring up the subject while the troops are facing a different kind of risk in the war zone is illustrative of the regard our media has for the military and its mission.

I would like to see more commentary comparing the situation of President Lincoln in 1864 to Obama’s current one.  A distinct contrast in character, to say the least.  I’ll not go into the details here, you can look it up.  Or perhaps Achance will weigh in on the subject.  The similarities between the situations are shockingly similar, and the looming disparity in reaction to them is frightening.

I have no allusions about what limits our political class has to self-interest.  To talk about the political risk of NOT surrendering the battlefield to the enemy , with no regard for the risk to the nation and its defenders, is egregious.  As if this war is optional.  It is not.

Enough of that stuff.  For some more uplifting journalism, turn to page 4 at the link above and read Stars and Stripes reporter Sandra Jontz story on a Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Zabul Province.  I encourage you to checkthe S&S link daily for a comprehensive compilation of stories about the combat zone, some you will likely find nowhere else.  This way you get to see the stories the GIs see.

V/r,

1SGinTN

Last week, the Taliban managed to hijack two fuel tankers of coalition diesel.  In the process of absconding with the goods, they managed to get at least one of the heavy-laden  trucks stuck in the process of fording a river.  Being the thugs that they are, their solution to the situation was to go to a local village and dragoon by force the local populace to assist in getting the vehicle(s) free.  One of their methods was to lighten the loads by “giving away the fuel”.  The media may wish to convey an altruistic motive for the Taliban’s gift of fuel to poor villagers.  Don’t  fall for it.  Their motive for taking the fuel in the first place was primarily for their own use and for resale, and to deny its use to coalition forces secondarily (otherwise they would have just blown it up).  Some articles also portray the fuel give away as a frenzy of opportunistic locals taking advantage of “free fuel”.  I don’t discount that on some level, but not to the extent most articles say.  This occurred in the North, home of our first allies the Northern Alliance.  Not necessarily a hotbed of Taliban sympathies; so I lean towards a strong element of threats and coercion on the part of the Taliban in getting the assistance of the locals.

In any case, the activity was observed from on high and the results of the observation was relayed to the German commander in sector, who had authority to call for an air strike against the target.  This was not a shoot from the hip reaction, but rather a well-reasoned decision by the man with the responsibility to act on the facts that he had available to him.  Two 500 lb bombs took out the target.  There is no dispute that civilians were killed, only the numbers.  A group calling itself the Afghan Rights Monitor claims that through its interviews of 15 villagers it has determined that only a dozen Taliban were killed versus 60-70 civilians.  On the other hand, the Kunduz Provincial Government through a spokesman has said only 5 of the estimated killed were civilians.  Somewhere between is the truth, but the truth may be unknowable due to the level of destruction at the site.

Who is at fault?  That’s easy.  The thugs caused it.  Whether they were Taliban or just thieves (either is equally likely), they were the ones who put the villagers in danger.  If the villagers were eager to glom onto free fuel, its a lesson on no free lunch or don’t be receiving stolen goods – take your pick.  Lest I come off as hard-hearted, let me assure you that I do have sympathy for the poor folks just minding their own business who happen to be oppressed by this type of thug – be it Taliban or organized gang of thieves.  The SF guys motto is “De Oppresso Libre”, which means to liberate the oppressed.  That’s what we’re supposed to be doing, it goes hand-in-hand with defeating our enemies; you can’t do one without the other.

The next story you will see in the MSM to provoke sympathy and outrage is an “invasion” of an NGO hospital by US forces, who tied up staff and visitors and tried to intimidate staff into exposing insurgents there for treatment.  The gallant NGO hospital staff stood up to the mean old GIs and refused to do so.  Oh yes, violations of the Geneva Convention and all that.  Don’t fall for that, either.  We weren’t bombing the hospital, just searching it.  Everyone knows damn good and well we are this first ones to treat a wounded adversary right after he’s tried to kill us.  This ‘incident’ happened in Warduk Province yesterday – so look for it.

Getting back to finding sympathy.  Careful you don’t look in the wrong place or rather try to misplace it.  We didn’t start the fight or the fire.  Civilians are going to get hurt, no matter how hard we try to avoid it – and we try mighty hard.  Not our fault 99 times out of 100, I’d say.  You go ahead and form your own opinion.  There were a lot of civilians hurt by us while conducting WWII, but everyone is damn glad we won it.  We do things a lot different in the 21st century, so be thankful of the improvement and appreciate it, rather than falling for what the liberal media is selling.

V/r,

1SGinTN

Here I am in Afghanistan; although I “ain’t skeered”, I’m plenty apprehensive.  Not because of the Taliban, mind you – but because of what our own Democrat-controlled government, in concert with the media, may eventually do.  The last time we had such a war-time equation, Congress reneged on our promises to support an ally.  I predict the media will soon abandon its “good war” characterization of Operation Enduring Freedom across the board and step up the advocacy of Afghanistan abandonment.  As an active participant in OEF, I unfortunately must consider the Main Stream Media as much an enemy as the Taliban.  Remember, General Giap of North Viet Nam considered the anti war efforts of the US media more valuable strategically than his troops in the field.  With that in mind, my goal as a redstate member is to inform and educate the reader on this subject as a counterpoint to the MSM.  My meager efforts may not accomplish much in that regard, but at least I won’t stand idly by while the MSM outlets spread their disinformation and distortions.

I have been idle on redstate for several months now, for several reasons.  One of which was my focus on getting ready for deployment to theater and the bureaucratic hurdles to finally get my orders.  Another was my heavy workload in getting contracts awarded for my agency’s contribution to the Recovery Act.  Say what you will about the stimulus package, I’ll put our projects for lock and dam improvements under the Recovery Act up for scrutiny any day of the week.  But that’s a discussion for another day, I’m here to talk OEF tonight.  I last did this job in support of combat operations for 16 months of 05-06 in Iraq.  I wanted to come to Afghanistan after a short break, but it became too easy to put it off.  Now that my agency is doubling its efforts here, the guilt for procrastinating tipped the scales.

After being here a few days, there are some striking differences between my deployment to OEF versus OIF.  First of all, I’ve not had to sit out any mortar or rocket attacks yet (although I did pass by the huge patched hole in the road from the recent car bomb attack of the embassy).  The projects I’ll be working on will primarily address infrastructure for the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP), whereas the projects I addressed in Iraq were focused on reconstruction and creation of civilian infrastructure. 

My job is no longer to take the fight to the enemy with small arms and called fire (hasn’t been for some time now), but with a keyboard and paper.  I am what some would call a force-multiplier, and others would call a “fobbit”.  In any case, I have found a role in this war as robust as my age and physical condition will allow.  I invite the rest of you to do the same.

There is, as usual, a lot of talk and punditry concerning the wisdom of ‘nation building’ and our ‘imposition’ of democracy on other nations.  My opinion, fwiw, is that to defeat our enemies – freedom must flourish.  Or at least the conditions for freedom to flourish must exist.  In both OIF and OEF we have all but defeated Alqaida and the Taliban (only to take a step or two backward on occasion); now we must continue to enable the conditions for freedom to exist in Iraq and regain lost ground and lost opportunities in Afghanistan.  Democracy is not always the answer (witness the election of Hamas to power in Palestine), particularly if thugs are in the majority, but it can be the answer if properly applied.  When we defeated the Axis Powers, we stuck around to make sure that conditions for freedom flourished so as to keep Europe from Soviet domination, and give Japan the ability to prosper and become an ally.  When we stopped the communists from taking over the whole of the Korean Peninsula, we stuck around to enable South Korea to prosper and become an ally.  We need to do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than implement the Viet Nam template.

We need to exercise patience and persistence to see this through.  I need your help in this regard.  Neither the current administration in Washington, nor Congress, possess the DNA for the job.  Rather than stand firm in the face of setbacks, they will fold.  In fact, I have no doubt that they look for just such an excuse to do so as I write this.  There will be setbacks, mistakes, and blunders by well intentioned commanders I also have no doubt.  War is ever thus.  It is our response and attitude towards these setbacks, mistakes, and blunders which will decide advance or retreat, victory or defeat.  I know what I want, but I also know what our domestic enemies want – and they happen to be calling the shots at the moment.

V/r,

1SGinTN

There are three dollar threshholds which trigger particular clauses: contracts valued less than $7,443,000; contracts valued between $7,443,000 and $8,817,449; and contracts valued over $8,817,449.  Yes, you read those odd dollar figures correctly.  The contracting officer has the descretion to tailor the clauses with regard to particular goods and sources when it is in the best interest of the government due to costs and availability.  Countries with which we have free-trade agreements are exempt, particularly with the higher dollar threshhold.

I have not checked the language in the stimulus bill to see if the contracting officer’s descretion is removed, or if free-trade agreements still apply to contracts resulting from the bill.  I’ll leave that up to you, dear reader, as I am on my lunch break right now – and don’t have time to read more lawyer-generated verbage at the moment.

The Democrats’ protectionist desires do not extend to the importation of terrorism, however.  The President has recently signed Presidential Determination No. 2009-15, which allocates $20.3 Million to Palestinaian refugee migration and assistance.  No sh*t, check it out:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/relief_for_gaza/

The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration is quite clear on the web as to its purpose:

http://www.state.gov/g/prm/

I call your attention to the phrase “resettlement in the United States”.

I use the ‘big tent’ cliche in my title; we can attempt to create it two ways.  One is by trying to be all things to all people, in the manner that the Democrats have used in the past.  This works at some level, particularly among the segment of the electorate that does not dig too deep into the issues to realize the contradictions inherent in trying to please so many factions simutaneously.  Another way is to focus on a very few core principles, commonly held by a majority of the electorate.  Before I get into those core principles, let me set up my argument on that theme by covering what I hope is some common ground for most Republicans.  I’ll make some assumptions that I’m sure you all will be quick to correct me on if go astray.

 One assumptionI I’ll make is that we prefer that the decisions made about how government is to impact our lives be done as locally as possible.  In other words, the concept of Federalism  and the primacy of the states is something we can agree on (after all, it was the states which formed the union, not the other way around).  There should be 50 experiments in government going on with regard to most of the issues which concern us, rather than one ill-fitting solution dictated by a distant central government.  This also holds true when a national Republican Party attempts to craft a platform on a cornucopea of issues, most of which are better left to the state parties to decide.  The solution a Conneticutt Republican Party finds viable with regard to an issue may be entirely different from the one a Tennessee Republican Party has.  When the National Party is asked “what is your platform on issue A”, the reply would be, “That is something the for individual State Parties to determine, since we believe that particular issue should not be decided at the national level’.  This would put an end to the concern raised by Sen. McConnell and others about the danger of the Republican Party being a ‘regional ‘ party.  There are indeed regional flavors to certain issues which divide us, so let’s not attempt to address them with national solutions.

Another assumption I’ll make is that we prefer fiscal responsibility and free-market capitalism to the alternative.  As to the first half of that assumption, the public sentiment is in our favor generally (notwithstanding the sentiment influenced by human nature more specifically).  Please tell me we can agree that a “compassionate conservative” deficit spending program is functionally the same as a Modern Liberal deficit spending program – and cost us dearly in the 2006 election.  As to the second half of my assumption, I’ll go out on a limb here and maintain that this too is a widely held public sentiment, although one that is constant need of shoring-up through education and empirical evidence.  These are examples of two elements of a national platform.  A strong national defense is, of course, a third.

Someone made a comment that “the Republican Party has too many principles”.  Well, I place a great value on principles.  I would rather say we have too many planks in our platform, which alienate some folks unnecessarily.  Some issues are vastly more important than others for our survival and continued prosperity as a nation, let’s focus on those at the national level.  Some of the more divisive social issues (where ‘one size does not fit all’)  should be settled at the local level – and I say that as a Social Conservative.

The color guard for the Super Bowl opening ceremony will not be allowed to stay & watch the game as in times past.  Just an easily-corrected oversight, I’m sure – completely unintentional. 

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDRiNzYwYzcyYjQ2ZWYwYjhlNzY0OWJjNTU4MmFkZGI=

Of course, if we contact Roger Goodell of the NFL and point that out, he can straighten it out pretty quick.

For a couple of months now, I had my desire to obtain those portraits made known to our agency’s facility manager.  I would remind him from time to time, and last week I was present when he made the call to the GSA rep to obtain them.  The guy on the other end of the line was assured that I had no nefarious purpose in mind, so he would see to it.  I don’t know how many of the portraits were in the building, but at least they were at each public entrance to the building.

Yesterday morning I was informed that I could not have the portraits, because the message from GSA HQ was that they were to be shredded.   I asked if destruction documents were required (as for destruction of classified documents) to prove that it had been done, but the guy didn’t know.

Now, you can decide for yourself the reason for the GSA policy.  I will choose to chalk it up to bureaucracy: the “we don’t have enough to give out to everybody, so nobody will get them” mentality.  Yeah, Lord knows the government wouldn’t want to be seen showing favoritism to anybody, or giving away through misappropriation the peoples property.

The cynical among us will say that it’s just another example of Democrats within the government bureaucracy getting in one last jab at President George Bush.  At least it’s not as extreme as the pharaoh’s policy of defacing the hieroglyphs of his predecessors, but I’ll bet we see a more refined version of that.  We have heard snatches of it in the inauguration speech, and can see it on the new White House website.

 As I left work yesterday I wondered if the portraits had been replaced.  Upon arrival at the first floor, I found they had not, only bare wall was in their places.  This morning the portraits of the new administration had still not been emplaced.  In my active duty days, when a portrait was unavailable for the chain of command wall, a statement in the frame would say “photo not available”.  I guess we won’t be doing that here.  I’ll be counting the days until the deficiency is corrected, as an indication of the efficiency of the new administration

As a teenager during the Depression, he lost his father to a stroke; and, along with his unmarried siblings, helped his mother hold on to the farm for a short time.  When war came, his job in the TNT factory kept him from going right away.  When he did leave in 1943, he didn’t return until 1946.  Among other actions, he and his unit fought the battle of Manila; rooting out the enemy from the rubble, block by block.  He was witness to the enemy’s use of women and children as hostages and shields, and the aftermath of their brutal rape, murder, and mutilations of innocent civilians within the Intramuros section of the city.

Upon his return, he finished his schooling on the GI Bill; and worked at a service station, as a truck driver, car salesman, service department manager, café owner, private club manager, bank loan officer, and finally, bank vice-president.  Somewhere in that timeline, an old friend with a funeral home needed a hand one day, and he pitched in to help.  Not because he needed the money, but because his Depression-era work ethic wouldn’t permit him to ignore the opportunity to make more money did he turn it into a long-running part-time job (even after he retired at age 72).

Bill Purcell was a man of many talents.  He could make the best steak you ever put in your mouth, and also knew how to make chitlins and calf fries.  He did his own maintenance, and could passably fix just about anything.  He used the vacant lot next door to raise the most productive garden around.  He and his fellow bank officers also had an acre plot in the country as a community garden.  Just for fun and to prove he could still do it, he plowed and cultivated it with a borrowed mule – and kept the rows arrow straight.  He was adept at numbers and compound interest.  He was a quick judge of character and seldom failed to correctly size a person up in short order.  If there was a baby anywhere near, he was sure to pick it up.  A man of few words, yet he could and did strike up a conversation with anyone, anywhere, at any time.

He once saved a man from drowning in basic training, and as a member of the Civil Defense squad in the early 1960’s he helped in several cave rescues.  He was recognized by the local Red Cross for a lifetime achievement as a blood donor.

Bill Purcell was a hero to me.  When I was a child, it was the sight of his old Army uniform tucked away in a storage closet; with its Combat Infantry Badge, rows of ribbons, and the 37^th Inf Div combat patch, that led to my Army career.  Although I gained a few more stripes than the ones on his sleeves, he will always outrank me.  When he was laid to rest a few years ago, I was glad to see that the funeral detail was led by an infantry sergeant from the local recruiting station.  

I mention Bill Purcell’s birthday here at RedState because his ethic of work and service to his country and to others is something to be fostered in new generations of Americans.  The shame of it is that the world his generation saved and built for their sons and daughters was perhaps too benign to produce the same character traits in them.  Our current situation, with its wars and coming economic crises, certainly promise to be a character-building exercise, however.  I have no doubt that a nation of citizens in the mold of Bill Purcell will prevail, if we could raise them fast enough.

A lot of bandwidth has been devoted lately to Katon Dawson’s country club membership, Chip Saltsman’s choice of Christmas gifts, and Gary Emineth’s inelegant statement of fact.  Again, so what – other than these sort of things tend to make the Republican Party look bad.  Yes, these events do give us opportunity to discuss principles, and have that value attached to them.  Let’s not get our drawers in a wad over them, however.  All of these folks have something important to bring to the table, and I’m not going to trash those in the party that I don’t happen to support for chairman (please remind me I have said that, next time I get ticked off about Moderate Republicans).

There was a lot of disgust, outrage, and pure entertainment value this past election season when the issue came up of the DNC’s readiness to ignore the primary vote to install who they damned well pleased as party candidate in the general election.  Hey, it was in the rule book, thus indignation was misplaced by that stage.  Let’s remember there is a rule book for the RNC chair election, too.  Those of us outside of the process need to realize our limitations with regard to the selection.

As for Ken Blackwell, I will do what I can to promote his selection as chairman, for what ever my efforts are worth.  Not being from Ohio, all I know is what I read on the blogs and from his website.  I think the info he has posted with regard to building the party has a lot of merit.  His conservatism appeals to me.  I am looking forward to further details from him in the New Year.  W. James Antle, III had a post on AmSpec today:

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/29/blackwells-back

At the risk of diluting my support for Mr. Blackwell, I must add that I have almost as much enthusiasm for either Michael Steele or Saul Anuzis.  Steele’s “Blueprint for Tomorrow” is extensive and his website is impressive.  His reported association with the Moderates of the RMSP troubles me, though.  Anuzis is a hard worker, and attuned to the technology necessary to reach out and grow the party (as is Steele).  I am sure it will be one of these three who will be chairman, and I wish them all well.  Whoever wins, we need to hit the ground running with the plan.  By “we”, I mean all of us.

Many are familiar with the tactics of the social-engineering shakedown artists. Jesse Jackson, among others, has made a career of it. There are numerous examples of lawsuits brought before sympathetic courts to force a bending of wills to Progressive agendas. We see it most often in the public arena, but when it happens in the private sector, the outcome is particularly despicable.

I offer for your consideration the eHarmony shakedown by a homosexual activist. I won’t cover the details; Michele Malkin does it far better.

When Conservatives bring up their opposition to issues related to homosexuality, we are quickly accused of forcing our views on others. That accusation never seems to apply in the other direction. In this instance, how can a rational person argue that the lawsuit is nothing less than imposing one’s view on another?

My intention is not to ‘gay-bash’; I don’t do that or condone it. Neither do I condone homosexuality. For those that do condone it, I will just have to respectfully disagree, with equal emphasis on ‘respectfully’ and ‘disagree’. I consider it a vice and leave it at that.

My view regarding the relationship between vice and government was stated in a post yesterday:

Just let me say that although our laws and Constitution have a basis in and depend on Christian morality, when we legislate against personal vice we put that controlling function in the wrong sphere. Government should neither promote nor prevent the exercise of personal vice. That is between an individual and his God (and to an extent; his priest, pastor, brother, sister, etc). Government intervention in this area creates too many unintended consequences. Don’t put the duty of the individual Christian and the Church in the hands of the legislature.

For folks who either have no Holy Bible or are disinclined to read one (i.e.: Secular Humanists), my argument is this: Homosexual behavior between consenting adults is a decision they themselves bear responsibility for. Government sanction of said behavior sends the wrong message to society. I see little to recommend it. It is a genetic dead end. It does nothing to advance the species.

For the spiritually minded I say this: Although the Scriptures certainly teach against homosexuality, they also indicate that all sins save one are equally reprehensible in the eyes of God. The only sin of higher rank is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Thus we have the instruction to “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Any spiritual person who singles out homosexuality for special censure, or put it in higher category of sin is in error.

This lawsuit and its outcome makes me very sad, but angers the Libertarian part of me, as well. I detest coercion and blackmail. This is a limit on liberty that cannot be tolerated.

I still remember the scenes from that film today (although much is stock footage that has been shown over and over since), but mostly I remember the experience. I don’t recall being particularly frightened by it, I was too young to know enough about it to be scared. But I do remember the faces and demeanor of the adults, and the effect the training had on them. To say the least, there was a seriousness of purpose about them.

Viewing the teaser about 33 Minutes, coupled with this video, puts me in a different frame of mind than the one I had in 1961. I am old enough now, and have seen enough of our enemies in various parts of the world – up close and personal- to know enough to be scared. And I am not ashamed to say it.

Part 1:
Part 2:

The second was an article at NRO by Michael Barone.

The US automakers have allowed union demands to price them out of the market. Now we see the results of this blackmail. A free market that will allow a business to reach the heights of success must also allow it to fail. To do otherwise negates the concept of a free market and will ensure mediocrity. If the automakers fail and go into bankruptcy, so be it. Actions have consequences. GM, Ford, and Chrysler; the unions and their members, shareholders, enablers in government – all bear responsibility. Creative destruction demands that efficient entities will arise from the failed remnants. First, we must allow failure.

One way to frame the argument is to ask the question “Do we want to achieve short-term or long-term benefit from our actions?” To put it another way, do we want instant or delayed gratification? This is at the heart of the nation’s political choices, and our recent track record does not bode well for the outcome of the proposed bailout or any other weighty matter our elected leaders will choose to consider. Our tendencies are illustrated in our current financial crisis, brought about by individuals who borrowed money they could not afford to repay , institutions who gained short-term profits by making the irresponsible loans, and legislative enablers who made it possible – and then shifted blame when the consequences appeared.

The Republican Party has sometimes been termed the ‘adult party’, because of its reliance on principles. Mature and disciplined behavior is characterized by a focus on the long term, delays gratification for a more beneficial result later, and is no stranger to sacrifice. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is a party of ‘right now’, ready to pander to man’s baser instincts. A focus on short-term benefits will cause us to lurch from crisis to crisis in an incoherent manner. Incoherent in terms of adhering to any principles other than instant gratification and pain avoidance, that is. The failure to accept the consequences of a course of action cannot be deferred indefinitely.

In the discussion between Blitzer, Rangel, and Blackburn, I could not discern any reliance on principle towards addressing the issue. I did find a lot of concern for pain avoidance, however. Barone brings up the demographics behind the Obama victory with the overwhelming support of the under 30 segment. We have done a poor job in raising that generation, eh? The Modern Liberal education system and our inattention have reaped its own consequences.

Do we have the ability to do the ‘adult thing’ with regard to current and coming issues? With Democratic control of government, I fear delayed gratification will be in abeyance for the next couple of years and pandering to the baser part of human nature will abound. I’m sure mine will not be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but how many of the under-30 demographic can I get to join me?

First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin’s career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama’s own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.

Takes on feminists:

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees

And lastly, Sen. Biden:

Sobriety? Biden now admits that dangerous powers abroad will immediately test a President Obama. He warns that the results of such a crisis will be very disappointing to the American electorate, and thus Team Obama/Biden will need loyal supporters to rally as their polls sink. Yet remember that Biden himself has been a fierce and opportunistic critic of Bush, who despite a frenzy of congressional demagoguery, initiated the successful surge and ignored the very polls that the for-the-war/against-the-war Biden so carefully tracked. More importantly, if an Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or Putin ever had any doubts about carving out new spheres of uncontested influence, they may entertain very few now.

I recommend it all.

“The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
-Abraham Lincoln (17 September 1859, speech in Cincinnati, OH)

“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”
-United States Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds

The abandonment of first principles, established by the nation’s founders, is apparent with the stark choices before us this election season. Few times in U.S. history has such a wide chasm separated the factions contending for primacy at this level of enmity.

True enough, we have had citizens at odds with each other over the mechanisms of government from the beginning. The Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution in 1787 because they argued that centralized power would become despotic. Mark this well, although the ratification of the 10th Amendment in 1791 addressed this concern, the centralization of power since the turn of the 20th century has rapidly progressed.

“…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. … when all government … in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” -Thomas Jefferson (1821)

Thomas Sowell, in Conflict of Visions, explains the basic philosophies that have been contending for primacy in society for centuries. The constrained vision and unconstrained vision he describes fuels our differences about what government is supposed to do. Those with the constrained vision (conservatives, classic liberals) see society as fallible, acknowledge trade-offs as necessary, and recognize humans are in need of incentives to appeal to their natural individuality. Those of the unconstrained vision (modern liberals, socialists, progressives) see society as perfectible, and work to mold it to their concept of perfection to the negation of individuality.

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption for authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
-Daniel Webster

How did we get to this state of affairs? A lack of knowledge and application of first principles that are vital to the process I call Maintenance of the Republic. Just as a machine whose preventive maintenance has been deferred will eventually require a costly overhaul; the government of this republic now requires an overhaul to return it to the founder’s specifications. We conservatives generally have an idea what those specifications are; others either have no clue or are certainly determined to change them. If we educate and guide the clueless and refresh ourselves on these points, we can prevent our opponents from altering our republic beyond what the founders would recognize.

“There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it ever come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.”
-Daniel Webster

Where, then is our owner’s manual? I submit that no one document fulfills that purpose. The Constitution forms the legal basis of our government. It is so central to U.S. citizens that the military, federal officials and employees pledge their loyalty to it. The Federalist Papers may be seen as the philosophical basis of our government and the Constitution itself. Certainly the Declaration of Independence is the ultimate philosophical basis of our nation. The statement that the moral basis of our government (and indeed our society) is The Holy Bible will cause dissent today, but the founders would find no fault with it.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams

“I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable, in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.”
- James Madison

“Do not let anyone claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.”
-George Washington

The founders based their morals in the belief of a Supreme Being, and likely had no inkling the day would come that masses of citizens have abandoned this concept. Can you doubt the strength of their faith in God when Deity is referenced four times in the Declaration of Independence and once even in the Constitution? Although being men of faith, they recognized the individual’s right to believe or not and worship as he sees fit. Thus the 1st Amendment prescriptions to neither establish nor prohibit free exercise of religion. For those among us who abstain from religion, or whose faith is based on other than The Holy Bible; I do not wish to impose it on you, but rather recommend it for its cultural and literary contribution to our nation. If for no other reason, so that when you see one of our members here at redstate refer in a reply to “Balaam’s Ass”, you will know he is not talking about a congressman’s posterior.

Are there other documents which guide us in maintaining the republic? I invite your response to this question. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and certainly his 2nd Inaugural Address bear scrutiny in this regard.

There are instances when we have succeeded in proper maintenance, such as when FDR was thwarted in packing the Supreme Court. I am sure you can list others of equal or greater import, and I invite you to do so.

As for failure to maintain, the instances that come readily to my mind this election season are those that occurred in the first half of the 20th Century, particularly in the Progressive Era. Three of the four amendments to the Constitution in this era are examples of egregious undermining of the concept of Federalism. I speak of the 16th Amendment, which gave us an income tax to enable further usurpations and depredations by the central government.

“To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals … is none the less robbery because it is … called taxation.”
- United States Supreme Court in Loan Association v. Topeka (1874)

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813 Edinburgh University)

I also refer you to the 17th Amendment, which further eroded the power of the states by removing the role of selection of U.S. Senators from the state legislatures. The 19th Amendment, which gave us Prohibition in an imposition of the good intentions of some upon all, contributed to the establishment of organized crime. There are many other unintended consequences which flowed from the excesses of Progressivism, chief of which is the Great Depression. The sin of Progressivism was not confined to one party; TR, Hoover, Wilson, and FDR all subscribed to its tenets. The Democrats like to blame Hoover as contributor to the Depression because of his Republicanism. His Progressivism was the real culprit, while FDR’s Progressivism deepened and prolonged the crisis.

Let me interject here that I have often heard moderates and proponents of the left fiercely deny they hold liberal or Socialist views. Those two labels have been used so often as epithets that they run from such characterization in order to hide their intentions. On the other hand, I have never heard one deny or shrink from the label of “progressive”. Perhaps because it seems so admirable, since the root word is “progress”. Who can be against progress, after all? Well fine, then! Let them embrace progress – the first definition of progress in my American Heritage Dictionary says: “movement toward a goal”. I will grant them their charming label as long as we get to scrutinize the goal they seek, and most importantly assign them the legacy of their forebears.

The Progressives of times past had an affinity to Fascism; if you doubt their connections I direct you to Three New Deals by Wolfgang Shivelbush and The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn. Jonah Goldberg has further identified the Fascist strains in the modern Progressives with those of the past in Liberal Fascism. I don’t bring up Fascism in order to appeal to your prejudices or emotions, emotions are the province of the Progressives and those of the unconstrained vision. I appeal instead to your reason and discernment, to illustrate that the goals of our opponents are far removed from the goals of our founders and are incompatible with our goals as Conservatives. Emotion is a dangerous sentiment, and the unbridled emotion of the Progressives could well unleash excesses to rival the Jacobins of the French Revolution. I sense it in their rhetoric already.

I invite your comments, from all quarters. If you disagree or think me wrong, say so – and correct my error. If you agree, add to what little I have just contributed to our discourse and build up our brethren.

[Update: Starting today, Monday, 27 Oct, on NRO TV, the Hoover Institution presents a 5-part interview entitled “Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions” on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.]

www.GunBanObama.com

Check it out, but take your blood-pressure meds first. Oh, the answer to my question in the subtitle is: “We do”. Let’s see to it.