Don Miller puts life in perspective…again.

Travelogue #12

Dateline: Kafue, Zambia; October 27, 2009—The rains have not yet come so as I sit here under a rude shelter beside a dusty sward, my computer keyboard is slowly filling up with the fine red dirt that swirls in the refreshing breeze. A large group of boys are out kicking even more dust into the air on the soccer field. Most of them are in bare feet yet still they kick that hard ball with power. What feet the people have. But the beginning of this travelogue is not about soccer; it is about Lawrence.

Many people around the world know of Lawrence if they have attended my presentations. Even if they don’t remember his name, they can never forget the picture of that leg of his. It looked like raw meat from mid-thigh to mid-calf. Red, oozing and angry, it defied description but in the end had to submit to simple treatments. We would visit Lawrence day after day. At first he was insouciant, holding himself at arm’s length lest he find more disappointment in his life. The leg wound, whereas baffling, did not present to this young man his biggest challenge nor his biggest pain. It was his wife who soured his life.

After we became friends, and we did become friends, he would just make little expressions which I knew were coming from a broken heart. “Ah, my wife, she is at the bar,” he would say, not so much as to disparage her, but as an expression of his helplessness. I came to understand that she would trade her favors for a beer, and this is not the right part of the world to adopt such behavior, not that there is a right time or place ever to be unfaithful. AIDS is rampant here. Back in the USA, one out of four teenaged girls have at least one STD. No, no time, no place, no reason for immorality. I only saw his wife a few times, and each time she was a bit tipsy and carried about her that essence of alcohol I learned to hate so much as a child. I didn’t hate the person of course, but the habit killing them.

Lawrence responded well to treatment but he could no longer work. He had been employed building utility towers but his wound confined him to earth. We provided him with supplies with which to make a living and then I left Zambia. But I have always thought of Lawrence, looking forward to seeing him again. Well, today was the day. I have been in Kafue all day, visiting with a new crop of patients, pointing people to the great Physician. This is what I love the most. After dinner we went across the highway to find Lawrence.

The area where he lived is a confusion of mud huts, fetid ditches of water, and a thousand barefooted and raggedy dressed children. This is where the poorest of the poor live. It is literally “on the other side of the tracks,” a railroad track serving as a dividing line between the hopeful and the hopeless. Lining the road leading into this human morass were women peddling fruits and vegetables, fly-covered dried fish, and assorted bobbles selected to tempt a few kwacha from the want of those who had a moment of excess. And it is dirty. I was told today that a plastic bag in your yard is considered a status symbol. It means you have enough money to shop in a place that supplies plastic bags for your purchases. According to this way of thinking, I was entering an affluent community for plastic bags and other trash were scattered everywhere.

It had been seven years since I was last in this area but was sure I could find the home of Lawrence easily. I had been there so often. But now I was confused; things had changed, more homes had somehow been built between dwellings already crowded together like fleas on a stray dog. We stopped and asked a few people and finally found a young boy who knew of Lawrence. He and apparently an older brother climbed into our vehicle and took us back a Zambian block. We dismounted and entered the labyrinth. Nothing looked familiar but I knew somehow we were in the right area. Between a mud-block dwelling and a line of spindly shrubs lay a man on a reed mat, sleeping in the shade out of the hot Zambian sun. The boy spoke to him and he rolled over and answered gruffly, not too keen on being disturbed in his sleep. But when we spoke he sat up and turned from gruff to gracious. You see, he was completely blind and did not sense us being with the boy. When he knew we were there, he was most helpful. Just beyond the shrubs he directed us to the home of Lawrence.

Sand brown walls framed the doorway opening into the darkened bowels of broken dreams. The inside, devoid of any light but that which stole in from the outside, was as bare as the outside walls. The boy guide said something into the darkness and soon she came out. I had seen her before, and not much had changed. The familiar smell of alcohol enveloped Lawrence’s wife. But one thing was tragically different; she was now a widow.

It seemed Lawrence’s wound had indeed gotten better, at least the wound on his leg had. But the wound upon his heart festered over the next few years until, sometime in 2006, Lawrence took his own life. He drank poison. I sit here now missing this man, this intelligent man with the measured smile and patient endurance. There was just no one else who had the attachment I had, who had been as involved with him, to continue visiting him and ministering to him. And now he was gone.

Riverside Farm sponsors what they call “Pioneers” all over Zambia. They help the people physically and spiritually. They look over the broken, the lost, the seeking. It costs about 300,000 kwacha a month to sponsor a pioneer, which comes to right around $70. For Lawrence, or in memory of him, I will now sponsor a pioneer to be placed in Kafue. If anyone else would like to place a man in the field who will work for humanity at such low wages, let me know and I will tell you how you can go about it; and it is tax deductable if that is important to you.

There is an allied reason for this sponsorship. I spent today going from one home to another, visiting people whom the students have met along the way who have physical problems. This is Africa and one would expect the major causes of debility and death to be malaria and AIDS. True, they are rampant here, but I was alarmed at the condition of those I met with. High blood pressure, stroke, heart disease are the big three here. These have always been considered to be diseases of the West, lifestyle diseases brought on by a western diet and sedentary lifestyle. If I have a mantra, it is “Live like an American, expect to die like an American.”

With three students I set out this morning to visit some of their contacts in Kafue who need health counseling. Whereas people around the world have been duped into believing modern medicine offers a cure for every ill in the form of the ubiquitous pill, when it comes their turn to suffer, they realize there has to be a better way. It is adopting that way which proves the greatest challenge.

Martin, a retired headmaster, lives in a comfortable home on the side of a rocky and sparsely vegetated hill. Upon entering his house at about 9 AM, one’s attention was immediately drawn to a large television set and a bevy of women and children sprawled around, transfixed by a soap opera’s sordid melodrama. On the floor were scattered a couple dozen Fanta bottle caps. No one stirred at our intrusion, for the Rastafarian dialoging with the nurse, and the starlet with the swain held them in their thrall. One of the students went to the end of a darkened hall (and it seems as if the insides of all buildings here are dark) and spoke with a woman coming out of a room. Inside the room was Martin.

In a few minutes we were ushered back to his room. Two or three weeks before Martin had had a stroke. His left hand lay curled in his lap as he sat on the side of his bed. The stroke had apparently not seriously affected his face as he smiled from both sides of his mouth. He was also ambulatory which was also a good sign. The stoke had been mercifully mild so I took this as an occasion to be frankly forthright. A stroke is the end result of a cascade of choices and conditions. The choice to eat a heavy meat diet and his condition of abdominal obesity. The choice to retire before the television and his condition of high blood pressure. The choice of drinking Fanta over water and his condition of viscous blood. I knew without a doubt he had an appointment with another stroke for none of the choices had been improved and none of the conditions improved. He had surrendered to his new disability and placed his trust in the plighted claims of the pills by his bed.

It was easy to talk with Martin. He was educated, affable and had a good command of the English language although one of the students, an older woman who was also a nurse, would repeat certain things to him, not in Tonga, but in English with a heavy Tonga accent. It is hard to realize how great an accent I must have to these people. Step by step I told what he needed to do to miss his appointment with the stroke and also to regain use of his left hand and arm. Thankfully I had purchased some Theratubes while in the USA. He will not benefit from this simple means of exercise.

Martin’s wife, also a nurse, was listening intently and agreeably to all we had to tell her husband. She was the one to see it happen. The poor woman, in her labors in the past to treat her patients she had become HIV positive and the antiretrovirals have caused her body to swell painfully. We closed with prayer, the students promising to return to check on Martin. But what happens after the students leave? Who supplies the hope, the alterative, the prayer? That is why Kafue needs a Pioneer…or two.

The last patient of the day was an ancient woman. She was sitting outside an unfinished cement block home with the rubble of construction lying all about. Stones, globs of hardened mortar, dried weeds all made a challenging pathway to or from anywhere. Yet this old woman in her bare feet led us steadily to the shadowed side of the house. Finding anything we could to sit on, we asked her of her condition. Although she was rail thin, you could see her abdomen was distended and her ankles swollen. Upon pressing a finger into her ankle, the impression remained for some time. Congestive heart failure. She was also having a bout of diarrhea. Hot weather, diarrhea, an extreme distaste for water, gossamer thin skin (except for the bottoms of her feet) all added up to a very poor prognosis. I gave her a bottle of charcoal tablets which should adequately address the diarrhea. Large amounts of water are contraindicated for CHF. We did what we could.

As we were leaving this poor woman whom I know will not be living this time next year, I thought on the first thing I try to teach my students everywhere in the world. With clarity I finally understood why I was so adamant about this thought. After Lawrence, this old woman, and a host of other patients like Silas, Mr. Perry, Emily and Billy, it became clear to me just today. My students have heard me say it a thousand times; “The number one purpose of medical missionary is to prepare people to die.” Some people never understand this idea, but now I understand it even more clearly. It is not about the patient’s condition, which is almost always serious. It is about my conviction, which is often not serious enough. We stand between the living and the dead. How many of them will sink into hopeless, Christ-less graves? Do I have the mettle and temerity to deal with the dying body and the lost soul? If not, I need to find another purpose in life. That’s what I want my students to understand.

More later for the day was a long day.

God bless,

Don

"Give, and it shall be given unto you, good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over shall men give unto your bosom."  HAVE GOD, WILL TRAVEL

A friend recently sent me a link to a site called “The Best of Sicily”, which contains a wide range of information for travelers considering Sicily as a tourist destination. As a quasi-resident of bella Sicilia for some years now, I highly recommend the site. However, my reason for posting today has nothing to do with the great food, history, beautiful scenery, or the famous Southern Italian hospitality. While perusing the webpage, I found this frank and honest description of the Italian legal system from an American POV. It is anything but the best of Sicily. While reading the article, parallels between the established Italian norm and the current US political trends became obvious. That is, obvious to anyone willing to see them.              

The article, "Italian Law and You - Welcome to the Jungle!" , by Amanda Sorensen is the most accurate synopsis of Italian "law" I have ever read.  I would add that all of these statutes are selectively enforced to such a subjective degree, it is impossible to seriously consider them laws at all.  Italy's collective mindset, which is a reflection of its culture and legal system, can be summed up in one phrase; it's who you know.  How this structure based on nepotism, fraud, and coercion does not implode is a great mystery to me.  It’s a testament to the awesome power of corruption and the people’s tolerance for the oppression it cultivates.  Once practiced by the majority, corruption becomes the mainstay and governing force in society and will breed some form of tyranny.

From the article:

Certain governing principles, though very real, don't influence everyday life very much. In the United States, a nation established by free-thinking men of the Enlightenment, individual rights are believed to derive from God (or from human nature itself), while in socialist Italy they are "given" to citizens by the state, much as they were granted to subjects by the grace of past popes and kings.

The lesson is clear. As America continues her slide further and further away from the founding premise of the Constitution, the closer we get to what Ms. Sorensen so aptly calls the “jungle”.

I saw injustice in the land,

     I heard the cheated cry,

But turned my back, for help should come

     From someone else, not I.

I pulled the curtains when I heard

     The screams of Genevieve;

It’s not my habit to intrude

     In matters such as these.

I read with angst the passing of

     My famous idoled stars,

But scarce gave notice of the men

     Off dying in our wars.

To hear a person pray to God

     Would really get me riled,

But mute was I when “Choice” they claimed

     To kill an unborn child.

I cheered when grants were proffered to

     The arts to showcase smut,

But when the men with morals spoke,

     I tried to shut them up.

When inept leaders sat to rule

     And the vilest men were praised;

Imagined I the change was good,

     As I hoped for better days.

Believed I all the nightly news

     Was true and bias free,

And trusted that my government

     Would take good care of me.

I followed all the liberal rant,

     I did what I was told

Until too late I realized

     My freedoms I had sold.

Farewell to Friends

When I was young and time was too,

I couldn’t wait till school was through;

For Summer held a thousand charms,

So rushed I to her waiting arms.

In her embrace we wiled away

Each long and happy school-less day;

I had no cares, no math, no verbs;

No book reports, no scolding words.

The fragrance of the new mown grass,

July the fourth’s bright firework's flash;

The swimming pool at Oakley Park,

The lightening bugs once it was dark.

The ice cream man still walked his beat,

The gaslights then still lit the streets;

We’d hotdogs grilled in dancing flames,

And played in gutters if it rained.

The time stood still for children then,

It seemed that youth would never end;

No cares could mar our happiness,

We thrived in childish blissfulness.

We could not see what lay ahead,

Except at night we’d go to bed,

To welcome in another day

Once the night had slept away.

But some of those back then I knew,

Who lived and laughed and quickly grew

Into the men who marched away,

Have long in soldier’s coffins lay.

I thank you each for what you shared,

The times we played, the times we dared;

For golden memories long ago,

What it meant you’ll never know.

You may have slept in Flanders lea,

Or lay you down at Normandy;

On Iwo’s sands you may have died,

Or stemming Chosen’s yellow tide.

Perhaps in Nam you met your end,

Where ‘ere it was, I miss you friend;

And still you march, and fight and die,

From Eastern sands you pass me by.

Farewell, farewell, to youth, to age,

There’s nothing decades can assuage;

But all you meant to me back then,

Not every conservative agrees on all issues. That’s fine. But we all need to speak with one voice when it comes to the subject title. The elimination of the IRS and congressional term limits are the two most important topics conservatives should focus on and we should make this clear to any potential candidate.

If enacted the Fair Tax proposal would force politicians to cede power back to the individual:

“The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.”

Passage of HR 25 and abolition of the IRS would disarm politicians by reducing the federal government and the funds for expansion, leave more money and power in the states, and take away the hammer elected and appointed federal officials use to intimidate citizens.

Congressional term limits, like the Fair Tax would drastically alter the government landscape in favor of the individual. I found a 15 year-old article at The Heritage Foundation website that is more applicable today than when originally composed. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion:  

“It is difficult to overstate the extent to which term limits would change Congress. They are supported by large majorities of most American demographic groups; they are opposed primarily by incumbent politicians and the special interest groups which depend on them. Term limits would ameliorate many of America's most serious political problems by counterbalancing incumbent advantages, ensuring congressional turnover, securing independent congressional judgment, and reducing election-related incentives for wasteful government spending. Perhaps most important, Congress would acquire a sense of its own fragility and temporariness, possibly even coming to learn that it would acquire more legitimacy as an institution by doing better work on fewer tasks.”

Please go to the site and read every word. It’s long but worth it. It’s important that we all know the details of the arguments for and against term limits.

All other issues, including social and foreign policy matters take a backseat to these two essential changes that must occur. We cannot steer this car unless we take the wheel back from the Fed. These are the initial concrete steps towards securing our eroding liberties and getting government under control. Once the individual regains the power our original founders intended and designed, only then can we start to reverse the social engineering of America.

 Our TEA party signs and shouts…our faxes, phone calls, and letters should collectively echo this message and make clear to all political candidates (incumbents and challengers) that unless these two measures are at the top of their agenda, they are not to be seriously considered. Anyone running for office opposed to term limits and the Fair Tax, regardless of their conservative principles or position on social issues, is not sincere about giving government back to the people, and is just the same ole package in a different wrapping.

Again, please visit the Fair Tax home page and read the Heritage article in its entirety.

I’m very curious to know how all of you feel about this position. If you agree, please copy the post, or rewrite it however you like and send it to anyone who’ll listen; Tea Party organizers, your legislators, TV and radio pundits…anyone who is trying to stop this ongoing train wreck.

We need to get these two issues front and center.

Regardless of who’s in office, Americans will always remain on the defense without these systematic changes to protect us.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/BG994.cfm

This is a short post. In fact, I don’t know what the minimum requirement for a “post” is, but this probably doesn’t qualify.

In my little crawlspace of a computer room, I keep family pictures, knickknacks, drawings, and a plethora of other assorted fare. My seven-year-old daughter even designed a dinosaur montage and wall aquarium (can you name the fish?). I’m not sure, but I may be the only person in the world with a dinosaur montage AND wall aquarium in his computer room.        

    

 

 

For those of you rusty in Italian, the article is about the two Tunisian terrorists Obama wants the Italians to take from GTMO. The author contends Obama is lecturing Italy that it must share the responsibility of housing terrorists. But according to Franco Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister, Italy cannot jail or prosecute any GTMO prisoners based on foreign law. Criminal charges must be filed in Italy for crimes against Italians. None currently exists. However, the Italian state is trying to dig up old charges against the two Tunisians allegedly filed in Milan.

In other words, even if Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi agrees to take the terrorists, it is unlikely the authorities will be able to legally hold them for any length of time. In fact, they may not initially be jailed, i.e. see ya! 

President Bush was well aware of these facts many years ago…as is team Obama now. The difference is, one administration cared that the terrorists would likely be set free, and the other is more concerned with appeasing it’s political base. But of course it won’t be Obama’s fault if the terrorist are released and kill more Americans (maybe a nice soft target in Italy); it was the Italians who set them free. And according to the Obama-bots, let’s not forget who created this entire “mess” in the first place.

Another win-win for team “O”, and lose-lose for the American people.

 

You may already know about H.R. 45. If not, please keep reading.  I drafted and sent an email to my three Florida reps: Mica, Nelson, and Martinez.  And received a prompt reply from Congressman Mica already. The bill, my email, and Mica’s reply are pasted below.

There’s a link following the bill summary and a petition available for signing.  But considering the topic and wording of this act, I think more action is required.

Please feel free to use the verbiage, in part or whole if you decide to act.  

H.R. 45 (Summary)

1/6/2009--Introduced.

Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

 Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

 Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.

 Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.

 Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.

 Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

MY LETTER 

Please oppose Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

 Draconian restrictive gun laws have no impact on crimes committed with firearms, other than to disarm law-abiding citizens.

 States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

 Conversely, those districts with the toughest gun controls have the highest crimes rates. Furthermore, many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. The empirical evidence reinforces commonsense. 

 What is incomprehensible and unconscionable is a congress trying to pass nonsensical laws which make all of us less safe; except of course the criminal. Finally, this is repressive and intrusive legislation that puts unnecessary burdens and restrictions on American citizens, while increasing the power and reach of the federal government into private lives.

 Thank you for supporting individual rights!

 V/R

 Tim XXXX

 Information paraphrased from “An interview with John R. Lott, Jr.” author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School

REPLY 

Dear Tim:

 Thank you for contacting me with your support for our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It was good to hear from you and I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.

 I agree with your views on this issue and have been a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights. American citizens should be able to protect themselves and their families, and in fact, our Founding Fathers placed the right to bear arms second only to the freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution. One of my priorities since coming to Congress has been to protect those rights. Americans know that fighting crime is more complicated than just a simple issue of passing more government regulations. Be assured that in the 111th Congress I will continue working to ensure that Americans are guaranteed their right to protect themselves under the Second Amendment.

 Thank you again for sharing your views with me, and I hope you will continue to do so in the future regarding these or any other issues of interest.

 With my regards and best wishes, I remain

 Sincerely,

 John L. Mica

Member of Congress

A former US Marine and 2003 combat veteran of An Nasiriyah (aka potential domestic terrorists) just sent me this pic of his house. He also just happens to be my oldest son. 

As Hannity would say, let not your hearts be troubled…

I just purchased a 3x5 Gadsden flag at Amazon for 2.95 + shipping for anyone who’s interested.  Never know when you’re going need one.

I sometimes post STRATFOR articles when applicable to current events. This is a good one.

A Chilling Effect on U.S. Counterterrorism

April 29, 2009

By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

Over the past couple of weeks, we have been carefully watching the fallout from the Obama administration’s decision to release four classified memos from former President George W. Bush’s administration that authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In a visit to CIA headquarters last week, President Barack Obama promised not to prosecute agency personnel who carried out such interrogations, since they were following lawful orders. Critics of the techniques, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have called for the formation of a “truth commission” to investigate the matter, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal inquiry into the matter.

Realistically, those most likely to face investigation and prosecution are those who wrote the memos, rather than the low-level field personnel who acted in good faith based upon the guidance the memos provided. Despite this fact and Obama’s reassurances, our contacts in the intelligence community report that the release of the memos has had a discernible “chilling effect” on those in the clandestine service who work on counterterrorism issues.

In some ways, the debate over the morality of such interrogation techniques — something we do not take a position on and will not be discussing here — has distracted many observers from examining the impact that the release of these memos is having on the ability of the U.S. government to fulfill its counterterrorism mission. And this impact has little to do with the ability to use torture to interrogate terrorist suspects.

Politics and moral arguments aside, the end effect of the memos’ release is that people who have put their lives on the line in U.S. counterterrorism efforts are now uncertain of whether they should be making that sacrifice. Many of these people are now questioning whether the administration that happens to be in power at any given time will recognize the fact that they were carrying out lawful orders under a previous administration. It is hard to retain officers and attract quality recruits in this kind of environment. It has become safer to work in programs other than counterterrorism.

The memos’ release will not have a catastrophic effect on U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Indeed, most of the information in the memos was leaked to the press years ago and has long been public knowledge. However, when the release of the memos is examined in a wider context, and combined with a few other dynamics, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism community is quietly slipping back into an atmosphere of risk-aversion and malaise — an atmosphere not dissimilar to that described by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) as a contributing factor to the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attacks.

Cycles Within Cycles

In March we wrote about the cycle of counterterrorism funding and discussed indications that the United States is entering a period of reduced counterterrorism funding. This decrease in funding not only will affect defensive counterterrorism initiatives like embassy security and countersurveillance programs, but also will impact offensive programs such as the number of CIA personnel dedicated to the counterterrorism role.

Beyond funding, however, there is another historical cycle of booms and busts that can be seen in the conduct of American clandestine intelligence activities. There are clearly discernible periods when clandestine activities are deemed very important and are widely employed. These periods are inevitably followed by a time of investigations, reductions in clandestine activities and a tightening of control and oversight over such activities.

After the widespread employment of clandestine activities in the Vietnam War era, the Church Committee was convened in 1975 to review (and ultimately restrict) such operations. Former President Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Bill Casey as director of the CIA ushered in a new era of growth as the United States became heavily engaged in clandestine activities in Afghanistan and Central America. Then, the revelation of the Iran-Contra affair in 1986 led to a period of hearings and controls.

There was a slight uptick in clandestine activities under the presidency of George H.W. Bush, but the fall of the Soviet Union led to another bust cycle for the intelligence community. By the mid-1990s, the number of CIA stations and bases was dramatically reduced (and virtually eliminated in much of Africa) for budgetary considerations. Then there was the case of Jennifer Harbury, a Harvard-educated lawyer who used little-known provisions in Texas common law to marry a dead Guatemalan guerrilla commander and gain legal standing as his widow. After it was uncovered that a CIA source was involved in the guerrilla commander’s execution, CIA stations in Latin America were gutted for political reasons. The Harbury case also led to the Torricelli Amendment, a law that made recruiting unsavory people, such as those with ties to death squads and terrorist groups, illegal without special approval. This bust cycle was well documented by both the Crowe Commission, which investigated the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, and the 9/11 Commission.

After the 9/11 attacks, the pendulum swung radically to the permissive side and clandestine activity was rapidly and dramatically increased as the U.S. sought to close the intelligence gap and quickly develop intelligence on al Qaeda’s capability and plans. Developments over the past two years clearly indicate that the United States is once again entering an intelligence bust cycle, a period that will be marked by hearings, increased controls and a general decrease in clandestine activity.

Institutional Culture

It is also very important to realize that the counterterrorism community is just one small part of the larger intelligence community that is affected by this ebb and flow of covert activity. In fact, as noted above, the counterterrorism component of intelligence efforts has its own boom-and-bust cycle that is based on major attacks. Soon after a major attack, interest in counterterrorism spikes dramatically, but as time passes without a major attack, interest lags. Other than during the peak times of this cycle, counterterrorism is considered an ancillary program that is sometimes seen as an interesting side tour of duty, but more widely seen as being outside the mainstream career path — risky and not particularly career-enhancing. This assessment is reinforced by such events as the recent release of the memos.

At the CIA, being a counterterrorism specialist in the clandestine service means that you will most likely spend much of your life in places line Sanaa, Islamabad and Kabul instead of Vienna, Paris or London. This means that, in addition to hurting your chances for career advancement, your job also is quite dangerous, provides relatively poor living conditions for your family and offers the possibility of contracting serious diseases.

While being declared persona non grata and getting kicked out of a country as part of an intelligence spat is considered almost a badge of honor at the CIA, the threat of being arrested and indicted for participating in the rendition of a terrorist suspect from an allied country like Italy is not. Equally unappealing is being sued in civil court by a terrorist suspect or facing the possibility of prosecution after a change of government in the United States. Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of CIA case officers who are choosing to carry personal liability insurance because they do not trust the agency and the U.S. government to look out for their best interests.

Now, there are officers who are willing to endure hardship and who do not really care much about career advancement, but for those officers there is another hazard — frustration. Aggressive officers dedicated to the counterterrorism mission quickly learn that many of the people in the food chain above them are concerned about their careers, and these superiors often take measures to rein in their less-mainstream subordinates. Additionally, due to the restrictions brought about by laws and regulations like the Torricelli Amendment, case officers working counterterrorism are often tightly bound by myriad legal restrictions.

Unlike in television shows like “24,” it is not uncommon in the real world for a meeting called to plan a counterterrorism operation to feature more CIA lawyers than case officers or analysts. These staff lawyers are intricately involved in the operational decisions made at headquarters, and legal issues often trump operational considerations. The need to obtain legal approval often delays decisions long enough for a critical window of operational opportunity to be slammed shut. This restrictive legal environment goes back many years in the CIA and is not a new fixture brought in by the Obama administration. There was a sense of urgency that served to trump the lawyers to some extent after 9/11, but the lawyers never went away and have reasserted themselves firmly over the past several years.

Of course, the CIA is not the only agency with a culture that is less than supportive of the counterterrorism mission. Although the prevention of terrorist attacks in the United States is currently the FBI’s No. 1 priority on paper, the counterterrorism mission remains the bureau’s redheaded stepchild. The FBI is struggling to find agents willing to serve in the counterterrorism sections of field offices, resident agencies (smaller offices that report to a field office) and joint terrorism task forces.

While the CIA was very much built on the legacy of Wild Bill Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services, the FBI was founded by J. Edgar Hoover, a conservative and risk-averse administrator who served as FBI director from 1935-1972. Even today, Hoover’s influence is clearly evident in the FBI’s bureaucratic nature. FBI special agents are unable to do much at all, such as open an investigation, without a supervisor’s approval, and supervisors are reluctant to approve anything too adventurous because of the impact it might have on their chance for promotion. Unlike many other law enforcement agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI rarely uses its own special agents in an undercover capacity to penetrate criminal organizations. That practice is seen as being too risky; they prefer to use confidential informants rather than undercover operatives.

The FBI is also strongly tied to its roots in law enforcement and criminal investigation, and special agents who work major theft, public corruption or white-collar crime cases tend to receive more recognition — and advance more quickly — than their counterterrorism counterparts.

FBI special agents also see a considerable downside to working counterterrorism cases because of the potential for such cases to blow up in their faces if they make a mistake — such as in the New York field office’s highly publicized mishandling of the informant whom they had inserted into the group that later conducted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is much safer, and far more rewarding from a career perspective, to work bank robberies or serve in the FBI’s Inspection Division.

After the 9/11 attacks — and the corresponding spike in the importance of counterterrorism operations — many of the resources of the CIA and FBI were focused on al Qaeda and terrorism, to the detriment of programs such as foreign counterintelligence. However, the more time that has passed since 9/11 without another major attack, the more the organizational culture of the U.S government has returned to normal. Once again, counterterrorism efforts are seen as being ancillary duties rather than the organizations’ driving mission. (The clash between organizational culture and the counterterrorism mission is by no means confined to the CIA and FBI. Fred’s book “Ghost: Confessions of a Counterterrorism Agent” provides a detailed examination of some of the bureaucratic and cultural challenges we faced while serving in the Counterterrorism Investigations Division of the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service.)

Liaison Services

One of the least well known, and perhaps most important, sources of intelligence in the counterterrorism field is the information that is obtained as a result of close relationships with allied intelligence agencies — often referred to as information obtained through “liaison channels.”

Like FBI agents, most CIA officers are well-educated, middle-aged white guys. This means they are better suited to use the cover of an American businessmen or diplomat than to pretend to be a young Muslim trying to join al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Like their counterparts in the FBI, CIA officers have far more success using informants than they do working undercover inside terrorist groups.

Services like the Jordanian General Intelligence Department, the Saudi Mabahith or the Yemeni National Security Agency not only can recruit sources, but also are far more successful in using young Muslim officers to penetrate terrorist groups. In addition to their source networks and penetration operations, many of these liaison services are not at all squeamish about using extremely enhanced interrogation techniques — this is the reason many of the terrorism suspects who were the subject of rendition operations ended up in such locations. Obviously, whenever the CIA is dealing with a liaison service, the political interests and objectives of the service must be considered — as should the possibility that the liaison service is fabricating the intelligence in question for whatever reason. Still, in the end, the CIA historically has received a significant amount of important intelligence (perhaps even most of its intelligence) via liaison channels.

Another concern that arises from the call for a truth commission is the impact a commission investigation could have on the liaison services that have helped the United States in its counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. Countries that hosted CIA detention facilities or were involved in the rendition or interrogation of terrorist suspects may find themselves exposed publicly or even held up for some sort of sanction by the U.S. Congress. Such activities could have a real impact on the amount of cooperation and information the CIA receives from these intelligence services.

Conclusion

As we’ve previously noted, it was a lack of intelligence that helped fuel the fear that led the Bush administration to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques. Ironically, the current investigation into those techniques and other practices (such as renditions) may very well lead to significant gaps in terrorism-related intelligence from both internal and liaison sources — again, not primarily because of the prohibition of torture, but because of larger implications.

When these implications are combined with the long-standing institutional aversion of U.S. government agencies toward counterterrorism, and with the difficulty of finding and retaining good people willing to serve in counterterrorism roles, the U.S. counterterrorism community may soon be facing challenges even more daunting than those posed by its already difficult mission.

This is our President. In the span of 78 seconds, he mocks the average American, lectures about “tightening our belts” while growing government exponentially, ignores the repeated and positive economic lessons of tax cuts, and ends the harangue with class warfare.

Ladies and gentlemen, our President…

[Original post]

Posted by feminthecity3586

Obama promised that senior citizens making under $50,000. would not have to pay any taxes. This was not included in his gargantual shopping spree.

Barak had accomplished precisely nothing of significance throughout his short career — and yet still promised the world, and more, to his followers. Obama’s election was supposed to end the “politics as usual,” but has been filled with tired old partisan fighting and divisiveness and name calling. His followers like Keith Olberman and Janine Garafalo call you a racist if you so much as disagree with anything their idol Barack, is doing. Barack could put an end to all of that divisiveness with one statement but he will not.

He has publically attacked Rush Limbaugh ... a talk show host, for crying out loud.  This kind of childish behavior is supposed to be beneath the office which Obama now holds.

Iran has launched its own satellite into orbit and is mocking Obama as a weak leader for wanting to have a dialogue with them. North Korea has withdrawn from its non-aggression treaty and is preparing another missile test. Somalia is in tatters. Yemen has released 170 al-Qaeda terrorists. Pakistan has released mad nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from house arrest. Russia is blocking supply lines into Afghanistan.

Barack's approval rating has already dropped to 66% according to recent polls. Some say it's lower.

[My Response…I’m logged on as “Aircanart”]:

Posted by Aircanart in reply to feminthecity3586

“Hang on to your hats (and wallets); it might be a long four years.”

Too late!  Unfortunately your, your children’s, and grandchildren’s wallets have already been plundered.

“Mr. Obama's characterizations of his budget unfortunately fall into this pattern. He claims to reduce the deficit by half, to shave $2 trillion off the debt (the cumulative deficit over his 10-year budget horizon), and not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. While in a Clintonian sense correct (depends on what the definition of "is" is), it is far more accurate to describe Mr. Obama's budget as almost tripling the deficit. It adds $6.5 trillion to the national debt, and leaves future U.S. taxpayers (many of whom will make far less than $250,000) with the tab. And all this before dealing with the looming Medicare and Social Security cost explosion.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html

Smoke and mirrors and redefined terms…up is down, weak is strong, and terrorist are arbiters of man-made disasters; victims no doubt, of a cruel past administration. 

Posted by NiceguyEddie in reply to Aircanart

Well, the article started out good, but quickly desolved into nonsense.  Basically, they DO admit that he cuts the deficit in half, but says that since "doing nothing" would cut it by 84%, he's actually INCREASING IT.  How's that for conserva-logic?  A 50% cut is an INCREASE.  LOL.  That BS completely falls apart even BEFORE factoring in the damage done to the economy by NOT making necessary investment in infrastructure and NOT stimulating growth in the economy.  Really a pathetic argument all-in-all that can only appeal to those that have already concluded that Obama will go down as the worst president ever.  (Despite the fact that the man he replaced, and who these idiots all supported ALREADY HAS.)

Posted by Aircanart in reply to NiceguyEddie

It’s not about Bush verses Obama, or a party issue.  It’s about the individual against big government.  Bush started this madness with TARP and now Obama is setting new spending records; no matter how twisted the numbers or redefined the terms.  The only thing stimulated is the government and Obama’s power base.  And it will continue to grow and amass power.

But perhaps that’s okay with you.

Obama-nomics, like the new deal, appeals only to Keynesian socialists (oxymoron) and/or those who ignore or rewrite history.  And the current spender-in-chief will have out “stimulated” all presidents combined by 2010.  Keep telling yourself, your children, and their children that’s it’ not spending or debt…its just stimulus.

Advocates for bigger government are either dependent, want more power, or just plain daft of consequences.  But if you want an all encompassing nanny state to do your thinking (investing) for you…well then…your response makes perfect since.

Posted by NiceguyEddie in reply to Aircanart

 It’s about the individual against big government.

*sigh* I'm getting tired of hearing this from the party that rode roughshod over the constitution for the past eight years.  You never do get around to explaining why "big" government is in fact "bad" or why you are more concerned with the SIZE of government than it's actual, legal REACH.  Why you are more concerned with limiting it's COST than it's POWER, ignoring completely the COST that would be bourne anyway were the government NOT to provide the services it does.

Bush started this madness with TARP and now Obama is setting new spending records

Agreed, on Bush.  As for Obama?  This is hardly new.  So did Reagan, Clinton and Bush '43, just to name a few.  In pure dollar figures, I'm sure that this can be said of all but a few presidents in this country's history, and in particular since 1930.

The only thing stimulated is the government and Obama’s power base.

The idea that the "gvoernment" is being "stimulated" doesn't even make any sense.  As for "Obama's power base?"  Yeah... you see that's being stimulated by pursuing polices that improve the lives of a broad cross sections of americans.  If that doesn't happen (as you have suggested) then he's out in 4-to-8 and we're back to Reaganomics with the next (Republican) administartion.  OTH, if it works... then what's your problem?  (Aside from the fact that the DEMOCRATIC and LIBERAL "power base" will grow?)

Obama-nomics, like the new deal, appeals only to Keynesian socialists (oxymoron) and/or those who ignore or rewrite history. 

I suspect that you don't really understand Keynes, or Adam Smith for that matter.  As for history... well, it's not Liberal's that attempt to re-write it my friends.  Case in point: The new deal appeals to almost ALL Americans who didn't own large corporations.  The polls don't lie: Roosevelt was elected in FOUR LANDSLIDES.  The first over an incumbant Predisednt that was HIMSELF elected in a landslide (the only time that's ever happened, BTW), another in the largest electoral landslide in HISTORY (more lopsided by % than Reagan's in '84 or Nixon's in '72).  Roosevelt had FOUR elections that looks like Lyndon Johnson in '64.  So your "only appeals to" point is utter nonsense.

Keep telling yourself, your children, and their children that’s it’ not spending or debt…its just stimulus.

Where were you in the Reagan years?  I guess you SUPOPRTED Clinton's tax increases to reduce that debt, huh?  (Considering his reduction in entitlements, you must think he was the greatest president ever!)  And why do I suspect that you went silent once again as W. turned a record surplus into a record deficit in less than a year, and then started an uneccessary war.  My "grandchildren" will be paying for that to, you know! 

Advocates for bigger government are either dependent, want more power, or just plain daft of consequences. 

Hmmmm... This is just right-wing bunk.  Saying the third point undermines the first two.  But I'll see you raise: Supply-Siders are short-sited, self-centered individuals just rtying to feed their own greed, regarldess of the consequences to the larger economy.  Now that's just liberal nonsense, but it's a helluva lot closer to the truth than what you're saying.  "Daft of consequences?"  So, maybe, like... Invading a country that didn't attack us?  Thus alienating our allies?  Thus emboldening our enemies?  Thus running up HUGE DEFICITS in the process?  Or supporting interrogation tactics that are guarenteed not to privde good intel?  Don't talk to me, or any liberal, about consequences, sir.  Your lot have no credability in THAT dept.  As for being "dependant?"  ALL businesses (and thus all of our incomes) benefit from gov't sepnding.  The money the gov't spends doesn;t get burned you know!  It gets SPENT.  At our business, buying our goods and services.  And even if the gov't doesn't buy them directly, the people who's salaries ARE paid by the gov't orby gov't spending DO.  The money hits each and every one of us.  (But more on this below...)

But if you want an all encompassing nanny state to do your thinking (investing) for you…well then…your response makes perfect since.

More nonsense.  No one is telling me how to spend my money.  You people play the victim so well with this stuff.  What you people [who bash Keynes] never seem to understand is that the moeny you "lose" to "high" taxes, is money that you never would have had in the first place, were it not for government spending.  Your mockery of "stimulus" reveals your true ignorance of Keynes and MacroEconimics.  (MBA, Univeristy of MI, with Honors, if you're wondering.)  The economy has a DEMAND side to it as well.  We've adress the SUPPLY side to the point where things have gone WAAAAY out of balance.  It's time to strengthen to demand side.  That means WAGES, and SPENDING.  And it will benefit EVERYONE.

But thank you for at least admitting that my response makes perfect sense.  I agree with that [part of your] point as well.

[When I tried to post a reply, the thread had been conveniently closed after Mr. NiceguyEddie’s post… coincidence? So I found Mr. Ed commenting on another thread and posted the response directly to one of his recent post. My comments stayed up only long enough for someone hit the danger button. I suppose Mr. Ed didn’t like the verbiage, and instead of responding, selected the “Abuse” (aka conservative intrusion alert) switch action. Here’s my rule breaking comment]:

NiceguyEddie / Monday April 27, 2009 4:12:32 PM EDT

Please forgive me for posting my comments for this column:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200904240038?f=h_top here. Unfortunately the former comments section was closed before I could adequately provide the deserved response.

First and foremost, thanks for your detailed response…and psychoanalysis. I’m flattered! The way you picked apart my comments line-by-line, was akin to ESPN’s play-by-play football coverage. Monday morning quarterbacking at it’s best.

Since you took the liberty to diagnose and label me after reading just one post, I’ll do my best to return the favor. However, I lack your obvious intuitive osmosis skills. Having never met, I cannot possibly know your motivations. And since I don’t know you, none of my ramblings are personal.

Your rebuttals ignore the history of FDR’s fiscal failures (regardless of his approval rating) and the unintended and intended consequences of Obama’s irresponsible fiscal policies and out and out deception. Instead you offer incidental references to past presidencies (mostly Republican); which is nothing more than the transparent typical diversion to deflect the current issue and responsibility.

The fact is Obama is spending money we don’t have, and increasing government and his powerbase faster than any president in history. Are you listening? That fact alone should alarm every rational voter. Because it is also a fact that as the government grows individual liberty is eroded. And something else to consider; once Obama and a one-party congress has implemented regulatory policy and legislation to alter the playing field in their favor; it is done. But that seems to be okay with you, providing it’s a democrat taking your liberty.

Here’s a news flash for you; as the two parties continue to trade power, the pendulum swinging one way and then the other, the Republicans will eventually regain control. But this time, thanks to Obama, they’ll inherit more power than they imagined. And the big loser is the individual tax-paying voter who ultimately has less and less representation; not only in government policy, but also his property. And if socialized medicine becomes a reality…his own body.     

You seem to be an ideologue through and through. Am I correct? That’s what team Obama and his minions require; he needs all the blind support he can muster. Had I’d taken the time to read some more of your posts; I would’ve realized that you’re a true believer. And if my guess is correct, Barak could enter your abode and you’d be bowing lower than he did to King Fahd. I’m sure in your eyes, he can do no wrong. Well, at least he’ll do better than that scourge from the past eight years, regardless of how big the government gets. Bush lied people died…right Eddie?

Ideologies will never get it. They swallow the rhetoric from websites like Media Matters and become stuck in the mire of Republican verses Democrat…liberal against conservative. And sadly for all of us, they continue to beat the party drum while the house burns down around us.

In the end, we need less idealogues and more people who believe in their own individual power. Those who take responsibility and recognize the constitution for what it is and the design of government’s limited role in our lives.

[I continued to repost the comments each time they were deleted. Here’s the list…17 total prior to banning.]

* Posted 1350…1605 deleted/reposted, 1609 deleted/…1614, 1624, 1633, 1637, 1652, 1706, 1847, 1904, 1922, 1953, 2007, 2009, 2033, 2051

[1620 My email to Media Matters]:

“My respectful replies are being deleted from the comment section of this post: http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904270028

Is free and open debate not encouraged here? What is going on?

V/R Aircanart”

* All times local (GMT+2)

[2030 Media Matters warning]:

-----Original Message-----
From: Media Matters Help [mailto:help@mediamatters.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:04 PM
To:

Subject: Media Matters Discussion Boards

Hello,

This is notification to remind you of the terms of use of our discussion forums. It has been brought to our attention that you violated the terms with your recent comments.

Please be aware that content of this nature (off-topic) will not be tolerated on the Media Matters site and further violations will lead to a ban from the site. We DO NOT ban users because of their opinions. Our goal is to foster lively discussion with opinions from all sides that is pertinent to the item.

Sincerely,

Technology & Online Community

Department Media Matters for America

[2040 My reply]:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your prompt response.

My comments are on topic as referenced in my post. That fact I had to post them indirectly, by no means changes the fact that my remarks directly and respectfully address previous comments made to me by another commenter.

Please let my comments stand, or open the previous topic of discussion so I may reply appropriately. If not, I can only assume that Media Matters censors it readers based on political content, and does not encourage dissenting points of view or open debate.

V/R, Aircanart

[2053: I am banned from Media Matters]:

You have been banned from the Media Matters forums for consistently violating the terms of use of our message boards. This may include trolling, excessive insulting and name-calling, and repeatedly taking a discussion far from its original topic.

So at the end of the day, my little visit just confirmed what I already knew. The libs cannot, nor do they wish to engage in any meaningful debate. Moreover, the older liberals who pull the strings at Media Matters and similar outlets, do not want their younger bloggers exposed to anything that differs from their perception of reality. They are cultivating a young liberal crop…and nothing threatens that crop more than reasonable substantial debate.

Did Obama, sitting in the oval office across the street hear our cries for liberty…our pleas for representation? Did he pay attention? Probably not…but we will continue to speak until he does.

Hopefully this is only the start.

For everyone reading this, I traveled over 5000 miles to attend this event. I’m not tooting my horn, but want everyone to understand how important I think these events are. America IS at a crossroad and it is the responsibility of everyone to become a voice in this effort to reclaim our country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO our little TH blogging club deserves a name.  Since this is Bobbie’s brainchild and labor, her name should be included. Listed below, in no certain order are some suggestions. Comments, new entries, and votes welcome.

1.      Bobbie’s Battalion (Perhaps)

2.      Bobbie’s Brigade (Has a certain ring)

3.      Bobbie’s Bandits (Too close to “Butt Bandits”)

4.      Bobbie’s Bloggers (Too benign)

5.      Bobbie’s Bombers (This has potential)

6.      Bobbie’s Boys (Too exclusive)

7.      Bobbie’s Beasts (Okay for the guys…ladies may object)

8.      Bobbie’s Basta*ds (Won’t get past TH censors)

9.      Bobbie’s Buzzards (Carrion eaters?)

10. Bobbie’s Butterflies (Maybe at the Huffington)

11. Bobbie’s Bulldogs (Has a bite to it)

12. Bobbies Bruisers (Another maybe)

13. Bobbie’s Brouhaha (Too many syllables)

14. Bobbie’s Brothel (My favorite!)

15. Bobbie’s Broadsides (Too many interpretations…Bobbie might object)

16. Bobbies Beagles (rrrrrrrrrRUFF)

17. Bobbies Bears (The Chicago who?)

18. Bobbie’s Beatniks (Cool dude!)

19. Bobbie’s Bartenders (Probably the most accurate)

20. Bobbie’s Barflies (See above)

21. Bobbie’s Barbarians (No doubt the left’s view)

 

or

 

 

Dear Sen. Murtha,

Congratulations on your recent award. I wanted to send this salutation to you directly, but your website only accepts emails from your home state. So instead I’ll post here, and perhaps someone from Pennsylvania will do me the favor.  

As a 52 year-old vet of two branches of service, I’d thought I’d pretty much seen it all. However, the past 60 days, and most recently, your award have reminded me that I still have much to learn from an ever changing world.

Were you really a Marine senator? Did you suffer the trials and tribulations of Parris Island? Of combat? Did you forge the bonds of brotherhood with your fellow warriors? If so, what happened?

How did you end up going from one of the few…the proud, to the embodiment of everything that is wrong with this country? How in God’s name did you arrive to this place?

I’m not angry with you sir…I tamed my ego long ago. I am however bewildered, disheartened, and terribly sad that a fellow Marine and brother in arms could stray so far.

You betrayed the one group of people on this earth that would have risked their life to pull your dead body from the battlefield. There is no stronger bond…and you shattered it, and then urinated on it. I hope God forgives you, because I doubt the Marines will.

Please pardon me if I don’t trust you enough to divulge my name, but that last place I want to be is in the crosshairs of a traitor.

Congratulations again.

Anonymous

What follows is a recent email exchange between an acquaintance and myself, following a message I forwarded to friends and family.

The purpose for posting this is to provide what I believe is an example of MSM influence on rational educated people.

Concerning the acquaintance; I’m unaware of her political leanings, but know for a fact she’s a hard working loving mother, a well educated decent person, and wife to a longtime friend still on active duty.

I could be wrong in my assessment, and her opinions are shaped by her close proximity to the problem. Again, my point isn’t to besmirch anyone, but only to illustrate what I think is the power of a bias press.

For expediency and ease of reading, I’ve pasted the emails so that the original message reads first, and so on.

My original email:

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 4:02 AM
To: Undisclosed Recipients
Subject: What do Hoover, Truman & Eisenhower Have in Common?

Forwarded…

Here is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around. I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.

Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

Harry Truman deported over two million illegals after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans.  And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican nationals! The program was called 'Operation W*tback' so that American WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs. It took 2 Years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegals back then, they sure can do it today, but doubt that they will……they vote Democrat! lf you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation W*tback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Reminder…………………Don't forget to pay your taxes...20 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you.

Response:

From: XXXXX
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 1:15 AM
To: Tim
Subject: RE: What do Hoover, Truman & Eisenhower Have in Common?

Actually it was between 1.3 - 3 million that Eisenhower deported.

 During the Great Depression, Mexican Repatriation voluntarily and involuntarily relocated Mexicans back to Mexico (mainly due to low employment) – however, one of the reasons Mexicans were targeted was because of the proximity of their homeland, Mexico, and the ability to easily identify them.  It is estimated that 500K left the US voluntarily and that 35K were deported (194K total deportations occurred between 1929-1935- all nationalities).  It is also estimated that between 1890 & 1930 one half of all European immigrants (legal & illegal) repatriated.  In fact I had 2 uncles who returned to Prussia/Germany during this period.  In 1924, the Quota Act of 1924 reduced the number of European immigrants from 1M to 100K…of course there were always an exception to the rule.

 As for Truman deporting anyone, I can not find any reputable data (mainly blogs supporting the same info) and/or historical facts to support the claim.

 Living here in El Paso gives one a different perspective on legal & illegal aliens.  The overwhelming majority of Mexicans (regardless of paperwork) are honest and hard working people!  They do jobs that others refuse to do and they do it for little pay.  Perhaps we should hit the free loaders who collect welfare, deal drugs (of course our sister city is Juarez – which is the most dangerous city in Mexico due to drug cartels warring over smuggling rights) and/or sit around and complain…or even better the jerks that cause us to be in such debt – bankers, wall street trader, CEOs, mortgage lenders and realtors.  How about the credit card and marketing companies who “push” their “stuff” on us (just like a drug pushers) making them think they “need” all of this stuff.

 Yeah, the Mexicans are taking jobs – but they are jobs that Americans are too proud to do OR won’t lower themselves to do because they think it is beneath them (it is not that Americans “can’t” do it but it is Americans “won’t” do it).  Think about it, how many Mexicans can go into a business and get a job if they can’t speak English very well.  English is still required.  I don’t see too many non-Mexicans doing landscaping, building stone walls for $25 (for a section of wall that is 16 feet long x 5-6 ft high x 1 foot thick) in 100+ degree weather.  Or roofing houses…not in Georgia and not here in Texas.

 Immigrants, regardless of the legal status, have always done the sh*t jobs.  We need immigrants because the majority of us “won’t” do what is necessary to pay the bills (bankruptcy) and “won’t” give up the perceived “right” to conspicuous consumption.

 Just my 2 cents…

XXXXX

My reply:

XXXXX,

Thanks for fact checking my mail.  I normally do a little research prior to forwarding these things, but it came from a trusted source so I failed to do so.  No excuse!  I’ll pass on your results.

Here’s my take on the immigration thing.

We do need immigrants…but not the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal ones already here.  This issue is about rule of law; not nationality or filling job requirements.  Immigration laws are in place, I assume to protect US citizens and legal immigrants trying to make a living.  Should legal resident aliens and US citizens playing by the rules, have to compete with those who subvert regulation and are in-turn rewarded by lawmakers and sanctuary cities?  Should American taxpayers be burdened with the costs associated with illegal immigration?  California is fiscally sinking as I write this, mainly due to overspending on social programs accessible and used by illegal aliens...estimates at nine to ten billion dollars in California alone.  

I have nothing against Mexicans or any nationality for that matter.  That’s not what this is about.  And with all due respect, you cannot be here illegally and simultaneously be an honest person.  Doesn’t check.  That’s like saying I broke into the store to sweep the floor.  The former negates the latter.  A trustworthy person follows the rules…like so many real honest immigrants are now doing.  Filling out the paperwork, waiting in lines, paying the fees, and taking the tests to earn citizenship…just as Cinzia [my wife] did.  And as long as illegals get top cover from unscrupulous liberal politicians protecting their voting base, the illegals themselves will continue to be exploited by equally unscrupulous employers.  It’s not that no one will do the dirty work; it’s that no one except illegals are willing to be abused for pennies.  If the employer is forced to pay American employees more, then so be it.  If he can’t compete…then he goes under.  It’s called capitalism.  Or at least it was.

And I agree; there are too many moochers sitting on their butts collecting welfare checks for doing squat.  We’ve created a welfare state that’s only getting bigger thanks to hope and change.  Perhaps if we didn’t have all these liberal social programs, some of those lesser appealing jobs you mention would begin to look a little more favorable.  Let’s see…pick strawberries at minimum wage or starve?

Thanks for your two cents and for enduring my rant.  Your comments are sincerely appreciated.

Ciao, Tim