Monthly Archives: May 2012

“I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.”- Letter to Mrs. Bixby, mother of two brothers killed fighting in the Civil War.  From President Abraham Lincoln: November 21, 1864

Amidst the beer, beach and barbeque this weekend, we should all take a moment to reflect on why we celebrate Memorial Day.  For all the platitudes rattled off in election speeches this year about the United States, none can be truer from either side of the aisle than those praising our citizens in uniform.  Now as much as ever- considering our armed forces are made up entirely of voluntary troops- we owe our soldiers the respect and gratitude for their choice to serve in the United States military, vowing to protect the country, the people and the Constitution with their lives. 

Memorial Day was conceived in May 1868 by General John Logan, National Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic.  It was included in his General Order No. 11, and carried out by the laying of flowers on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers.  Though it was not recognized by the South until after World War I, it is important to distinguish that General Logan chose to honor the dead of the Union and Confederate armies- celebrating those who gave their lives in both sides of that tragic conflict, regardless of allegiance and purpose. 

The holiday was officially federalized in 1971 by Congress, but was long celebrated by the states from World War I onward.  The people, even before their government, understood the importance of memorializing the men killed in defense of the United States in every war since the Revolution.  Our collective understanding and appreciation is the solemn pride embedded in the spirit of this national holiday. 

Our heroes have been laid to rest on battlefields all over the world. Pictured here, the final resting place of 400,000 at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

The importance of the traditional mission of the United States’ servicemen over the course of our existence as a nation could not be overstated, nor can its meaning be fully explained by a writer who has not served a day in uniform.  America is more than just a country made up of land, people and borders. The United States is an idea.  It is the unfinished fulfillment of an idea like no other in human history, where the government presides with the consent of the people.  Its purpose: to foster an environment for the growth and prosperity of the individual, where the rights and freedom of the citizen reign supreme at the center of our founding values.  Our equality in existence is stated in our Declaration of Independence- the first time in human history such words were ever put to paper.

Because of this dedication to liberty our people are not subjects to a despot sitting on an iron throne.  We are not serfs living off the land of some feudal lord.  And we are not slaves to any man or women.  None of this would be possible without the might and right ingrained in the duty of our armed forces- from the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington all the way through Army Rangers fighting today in Afghanistan.  Memorial Day is celebrated to remember those heroes who have served and died to defend the American Idea, wherever and whenever they are asked to. 

Today, the courage on display by solider of the United States is something incomprehensible by the average citizen.  Our fighting men and women are made up of a special breed of people: people willing to venture half way around the world to fight a faceless enemy who cowers in the bush as hidden bombs are triggered on the side of the road; a faceless enemy who sends women into crowds with bombs strapped to their chests; a faceless enemy who targets innocents in the name of their god, a deity so cruel and intolerant that the mind of a rational human being could never conceive of, nor faithfully worship.  Our troops seek out these demons to end their reign of terror in that part of the world, sacrificing their lives as active citizens in the United States, and possibly their lives on earth, to assure those of us at home are protected. 

Whatever the results will be for the 2012 election and elections thirty years from now, the American experiment will endure.  Unfortunately, our reality is a world in which there will be wars that have to be fought by Americans, and some of our countrymen will not return from the fighting.  Let us remember these heroes who have given their life over the last three centuries with not only three day weekend in May, but honor their costly sacrifice every day by preserving the idea of the United States for which they fought.  To do so, Americans must dedicate our lives toward the advancement of a moral, just and peaceful Republic- each one of us living a life worthy of the soldier who selflessly gave his to protect it. 

– John P. Burns

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”- Thomas Jefferson, primary author The Declaration of Independence

What we are now seeing in France is a reflection of the worst of human fallibilities, most of which are embedded in the tenets of socialism.  The failing way of Spain, Greece and Ireland can be explained mostly by the massive entitlement spending which has ensured government stewardship over the lives of the people from cradle to grave, and then some after that.  As a major player in the indebted EU, France was to help lead in the movement of austerity and responsibility.  Instead, the people of France have chosen to do the exact opposite.

In opposition to actually taking responsibility, the people have furthered their dependence on government by electing their first Socialist president in seventeen years, Francois Hollande.  Monsieur Hollande’s announced agenda will increase taxes, government spending, its debt, and further push Europe toward the brink of collapse.  What has happened there, and has a significant probability of occurring in the United States, is the political game of ensuring voter dependency- where votes are bought with utopian promises that can not be kept, whose failure of fruition will ultimately doom the very citizens that voted for their implementation.

Before delving into the inherent problems of expanded government influence in the lives of its people, let us examine some of Presidente Hollande’sagenda:

• A seventy-five percent tax on income earners over 1M euro (40% on earners over 100,000 Euro income).
• Increase government spending by 20B Euro- a fitting proposition for a country that faces a public debt consuming 80% of its GDP
•  A return to a 35 hour work week and lowering the retirement age back from 62 to 60- not surprising considering the riots we’ve seen amongst the young and ultra-privileged in Europe

After reading this short list one can understand this writer’s doubts on the ability of Monsieur Hollande to deliver prosperity to France through the implementation of these campaign promises, as they will surely plague the nation’s already weakened economy for a generation.  But there is a more significant problem.

The newly elected French president, a socialist, Monsieur Hollande’s agenda will only further dependence of his citizens on the state- and simultaneously weaken both. (telegraph.co.uk)

There will always be people in the world that cannot fend for themselves, and it is human nature to feel inclined to take care of these people, and we should.  As a society it is our duty to care for those, especially children, who may be plagued with hardships so excessive in number or so unforgiving that they cannot be overcome.  But too often, it is a person’s choice to give up when faced with the realities of the world.  It is his choice to look to government to take care of him, even if he has the ability to do so regardless.  Politicians capitalize on those who make this choice by making pie in the sky promises like the new French President; implementing policies that ultimately go against the grain of logic when the actual plan of governance is analyzed.  They place the expenses of these programs, which are massive, on the backs of other citizens who are vilified for their wealth and success.   And simultaneously, it never dawns on said politicians that this approach will have a dire effect on the country’s prosperity and morale.  The votes for these programs are then essentially bought at the expense of others.  And currently in the United States, President Obama is the highest bidder.

The Obama campaign’s newly released internet marketing tool is “The Life of Julia”.  This serves as an advertisement of President Obama and his party’s government-centered ideology, cementing their departure from President Bill Clinton’s New Left policies that once proclaimed the era of big government over.  In Julia, we see a young woman whose life progress- ranging from ages 3 to 67- is charted by her participation in welfare state programs championed but still unreformed by Democrats.  Free birth control, business loans (meaningless under the weight of Obamacare) and social security are just some of the programs highlighted in this ad.  Naturally we are not told how any of this is paid for (higher taxes) nor are we informed how Social Security and medicare will somehow be stabilized in the latter part of this century.

But the soundness of these expectations is not the issue.  The issue is the ad’s implication that this young woman’s life will be shaped by government programs and not her autonomous decisions.  Is this the America the President envisions, a nation of serfs who depend on his initiatives to survive, as if they cannot do so on their own?  The United States has made it this far without turning to European styled Democratic-Socialism.  Why would we need it now?

And that’s the rub.  The United States is home to the most innovative and self-reliant people in the world.  But when these false promises of comfort and security are dangled in front of our eyes, some people, maybe even a majority, will flock to that safety net during these hard times.  President Obama is taking advantage of the continuing economic stagnancy by using the fears of those who struggle as an end to rationalize his crafting of a leviathan government defined by unregulated spending on programs that will be financed on the backs of other citizens, deemed the wealthy.  When such pledges are made, citizens and then their children begin a life of dependency that ultimately begets subservience to the politician who ensures them he will spread the wealth, and force others to pay their fair share.   The public’s mobility is then limited, and he or she is set on a path hitched to a set trajectory as displayed by “Julia.”  In Mr. Obama’s America, the government shapes the lives of the citizenry- and their freedom of choice and expansion of wealth and industry is then suffocated.

As we approach November, it is imperative for Governor Romney and republicans to hammer the problems of this radical agenda home.  The President ultimately has a vision, one that will remake America in the image of our European brethren: where personal responsibility is no longer an imperative in the life of a citizen, and an ever expansive nanny state’s insistence on regulating most aspects in our lives will finally lead to its fiscal self-implosion.  Mr. Obama’s vision will lead to this disaster from which there may be no return.

We must always foster programs that help those who are in need and struggle for reasons beyond their own control.  But the United States government, currently plagued by debt and ineffectiveness, cannot shoulder the burden itself.  There are avenues through churches and other institutions that can raise and distribute aid and welfare in a streamline of efficiency, as opposed to the bungled bureaucracy of the federal government.  There is nothing wrong with a safety net provided by our elected officials- but once politicians begin to take advantage of the pleas of those in need, and use those pleas to advance their own agenda to enlarge welfare programs for citizens who simply choose to receive their benefits, the existence of the United States as the safeguard to an autonomous citizenry is threatened.

President Obama wishes to remain in office, and he cannot do so based on poor state of the country which has endured through his first term.  But as we saw in France this past week, there seems to be another campaign approach he can take to reach that goal.

– John P. Burns

“A handful of soldiers is always better than a mouthful of arguments.”– Georg C. Lichtenberg, eighteenth century German scientist and satirist.

September 11, 2001 changed the United States, and the world, in as many ways as one could fear.  Our nation has been plagued by a war not of its choosing for ten years.  Today, we see ourselves sickened by the images of maimed or dead American soldiers still returning home from foreign wastelands in the Middle East- as we question what will be gained from our continued presence there after our initial response to the horrific attacks of 9/11.  Not since the fall of Saddam Hussein and the day of the first free elections in Iraq were Americans able rejoice as they did May 1st last year with the success of the mission to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden.  And even with those feelings of jubilation, relief and even closure, the American political class cannot get out of its own way to politicize the issue- turning an American triumph into a divisive argument once again.        

One could date this display of gross politicization back to last May when the news of the mission’s success broke.  Democrats immediately flocked to a party rallying cry, after brief platitudes celebrating the SEALs, of malice and vindictiveness toward President George W. Bush.  After eight years of demonizing the former president, they wanted to take it a step further, making the claim (to paraphrase) “what Bush couldn’t do in eight years, Obama did in two.”  Thankfully, the average American keeps him or herself well informed, and was able to see through this political parlor trick; it had been noted time after time that Mr. Obama has kept intact most of President Bush’s anti-terrorism measures.  These measures played a vital role in the gathering of intelligence on Bin Laden’s location. 

Unfortunately though, after their own brief platitudes celebrating the SEALs, Republicans chose to lower themselves to the Democrats’ level- immediately crediting President Bush for a job well done while simultaneously dismissing President Obama as a man who simply was in the right place at the right time.  Neither of these approaches to this matter bestows the proper, and necessary, credit due to the men and women who have served in the War on Terror: the soldiers that have strategically placed us in the position to carry out the mission, the intelligence operatives who gained the information through years of interrogation and the dangerous pursuit of one of the most vicious terrorist network in the world, and of course the SEALs who assassinated Bin Laden and completed the mission successfully.

President Obama’s National Security Team watches in suspense as SEAL Team Six Carries out its mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A resounding achievement for our armed forces and the President at the time, now turned into a divisive campaign argument for both sides of the political divide. (www.ABCnews.com)

Although I paint both parties here with a broad brush, and there are those who did not choose to try to capitalize on this event as shamelessly as I depict, the display we have seen this week is much worse than anything from last year.  Now, instead of Democrats choosing to taunt President Bush, party attack dogs and even the President have gone after Governor Romney.  A new Obama re-election ad was released last week, with President Bill Clinton narrating over shots of President Obama and his tough decision to give the go ahead on the mission to get Bin Laden.  Though the President insisted last year he would not “spike the football” by releasing photos of the dead Bin Laden, it seems his end zone dance is much worse, with the ad going as far to imply the accusation that his Republican rival would not have made the same decision. 

Unfortunately, again, Republicans have lowered themselves to this petty party bickering, where Governor Romney chose to meet President Obama head on, and make this statement in response to the ad: “Even Jimmy Carter would make that decision.”  Does that childish chide seem Presidential Mr. Romney?  And with all due respect Governor, who gives a damn what President Jimmy Carter would have done?  The man has been out of office for thirty years.  If Republicans are to cry foul over needless attacks on President Bush, then let’s please leave Mr. Carter (1977-1981) out of the conversation all together.  I understand this is an election year, and there is the natural need to meet every argument and every attack with full force to make sure one does not look cowardly or inept.  But let us for once elevate the conversation.  We have already seen President Obama fail to bring “Hope and Change” to Washington- Mr. Romney should do his best to pick up where Mr. Obama failed. 

Granted, any political strategist will make the claim this not a perfect world, and conceding that much ground in a debate is a sure fire way to hand over a big win to the administration.  That conclusion may have been correct, at least until Monday.  Monday, former and current Navy Seals criticized the administration for the ad released last week, and with the reaction shared by this writer, considered it beneath the President to “spike the football” over the success of the Bin Laden mission.  As stated in the article:

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

This sentiment seems to reflect the feeling of the American citizenry, whose approval of the mission gave the President a six point bump in approval rating last Spring after the mission, but these numbers quickly came back down to earth as the initial jubilation had worn off.  At this point in time Americans still saw themselves in a stagnant economy, fighting to make ends meet as the unemployment rate in the United States sat above 9%.  Governor Romney should have taken the high road, and instead of invoking irrelevant memories of President Carter’s ineptitude, he could have put together a statement akin to this:

“If the President chooses to pat himself on the back over the Bin Laden raid as he campaigns across the country in place of governing it, good for him.  I’ll be sure to be the Commander-in Chief who celebrates our service men and women who risk their lives to get the job done, as well as propose a responsible Defense budget that will keep our soldiers safe and well-equipped to carry out such a mission again if needed.”

These simple words would congratulate SEAL team six while simultaneously admonishing the president for his weak fiscal policies which currently plague the nation.  If he is to win in November, Mr. Romney needs to remember to bring the discussion back to the issues the American people face on a daily basis, instead of getting into a mudslinging match a challenger going up against the White House will surely lose. 

The hypocrisy Americans see in their politicians is often disregarded, noted as a cost of doing business in a peaceful Democratic-Republic.  Today we see that hypocrisy shamelessly displayed on both sides of the aisle regarding the Bin Laden raid- both parties too eager to credit itself on managing a job well done, and as a result minimalizing the roles of the brave men and women who did the real work in the first place. 

– John P. Burns