Still feeling mixed feelings after another Memorial Day. Feelings about my own service, the loss of Brothers; the direction of our Republic and the fractious society within. Posting snippets of an article from The Angry Staff Officer:
Back again to the soft May sun of the Ohio day. The birds chirp in the background and now the veteran’s voice is rising, in strident tones, and I am shifting uncomfortably in my seat because his talk smacks of nationalism and jingoism. But the audience loves it. They love being told that there is a divide between true patriots and the rest of the country. They love hearing that this is the greatest nation in the world that can do no wrong. They love being able to heap admiration and praise onto the 1% of those who’ve served without having to take the time to deeply analyze why those young men were bleeding in Vietnam in the first place. Because this version is simple. Because this definition of patriotism is black and white, or, I suppose, red, white, and blue. They know where the lines are, and they can say that they support the true patriots.
It is a very seductive way of thinking, as I know, since I once viewed service and conflict along those same lines.
Patriotism and love of country are noble things. They inspire civic virtue, that which our Republic requires to survive. But love of country does not mean accepting the United States at face value; it means always working towards making the country match its ideals of freedom, justice, and equality. Sometimes that means standing up and saying that things are wrong or disordered, which can be unpopular.
Source: How I Lost at Patriotism – And How We All Lose
And the money shot: In the end, “patriot” becomes yet another label we use to define our world view, which cheapens both the word and its meaning.
Honor their memory and their sacrifice, by striving to maintain our Republic.
Photo h/t: Small Wars Journal
Here’s the sad truth: your problems right now are of your own making. Democrats were always going to try to pillory you. But you had a defense: they had no evidence. And you could say that freely, because it was true! You could go along with their investigations, just keep saying that you wanted everything out in the open more than they did, and everything would have been hunky dory. If you’re innocent, sunlight would show it.
Instead, you decided that you were so irritated by the necessity of investigation or the possibility that aides had deceived you that you ignored input and then attacked the investigators. In doing so, you looked guilty, you bred accusations of obstruction, and you seemed petty and vindictive. Why is there a special counsel now looking at Trump-Russia issues? Because you hired a National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, that everybody knew had connections to foreign governments, despite all outside advice; you then fired him when those connections became apparent; you reportedly asked the FBI director to let Flynn off the hook; you asked your deputy attorney general to involve himself in creating a justification for firing your FBI director; you fired your FBI director and then admitted on national television that you fired him thanks to frustration over the investigation – necessitating that the deputy attorney general put forth a special counsel.
This isn’t on Democrats. This isn’t on the media. This is on you, because you decided that the political universe would bow to you, and when it refused, you crapped the bed.
Hat tip: Pesky Truth
Trump has gone from serial liar to serial victim….just ask him. I’ve never put a lot of stock in the GOP and it’s candidates/nominees……but I never thought they’d gravitate towards such a whiny little bitch.
Heed Nicki’s words. Listen. Help. Don’t stop being there for each other just because the deployment is over.
Hope. Don’t give up. The bond is still there….don’t let go.
Source: On losing hope
Jonah Goldberg nails it, and I’m not usually a big fan of his writing:
But no one cares, because the signature image of the Trump presidency so far is a goalpost on wheels. Being all-in for Trump means never having to say you’re sorry. Then there are the folks who are mostly-in for Trump.
Every day I hear people say on Twitter, “Yeah, he’s flawed but at least he’s not Hillary.” But what kind of standard is that? I’m glad Hillary’s not president. Truly. But if your yardstick for a Republican president — not candidate, but president — is now “He’s better than Hillary,” then you’ve filed down the yardstick to a couple inches. “Better than Hillary” strikes me as the minimum requirement for a conservative president, not an omnibus justification for anything he does.
Leaving aside the inane use of adjectives and qualifiers [both verbally and tweet based], one would think that by now, POTUS would either have a grasp or keep somebody close at hand, to avoid making empty, false or confusing statements.
Donald Trump said he has given the military “total authorization.” That may sound great, but “total authorization” has no meaning. The military’s dictionary, (yes, it has its very own) includes “diplomatic authorization” and “letters of authorization,” but does not include “total authorization.” Perhaps Mr. Trump chose a non-existent term when he actually meant to say that he, as the commander in chief, had issued an order giving the military specific authorization to conduct operations limited in time and space.
Alternatively, perhaps Mr. Trump simply wanted Americans to know that he will exercise less oversight and control of the U.S. military as compared to his predecessors. Without clarification, we cannot be sure. There are at least fifteen different types of orders that the President, Secretary of Defense and military commanders can issue to those under their charge. They cannot, however, issue “total authorization.”
In the same vein, Mr. Trump’s characterization of recent military operations as “so successful” reveals that he has little idea what military success looks like. Trump’s crowing over a single missile strike against Syria or the use of the “Mother of All Bombs” in Afghanistan suggests that he equates action and aggression with success. As history has made clear, nothing could be further from the truth.
President Trump owes the nation – and the world – more careful language. Trump’s empty words may thrill his supporters, but they will not defeat the Islamic State or bring peace to a troubled region. If the American public is to trust him and intelligently support his foreign policies, especially with lives on the line, he must communicate coherently. The president should weigh his words before he speaks, provide clear explanations for his actions and measured assessments of progress. In short, Trump’s words need to mean exactly what they seem to mean.
Why Trump’s Words Matter, RealClear Defense – http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/04/20/why_trumps_words_matter_111211.html
Now copy/paste to the other 49 States……and end the enforced ignorance of firearm safety and the demonization of one of the salient tools that built and defends this nation, from enemies both foreign and domestic.
House Bill 612, filed this week by Representative Jay Adams, would give the state room to develop a firearms education course and allow the class, which would include “firearms safety education as recommend by law enforcement agencies or a firearms association”, to be offered as an elective to high school students.
The course, which would be developed by the North Carolina Board of Education, would not allow live ammunition in the classroom and would also cover the history and mechanics of firearms with a firm emphasis on the importance of gun safety.
From Bearing Arms
The eminent Max Boot has weighed in on the Clintonian missile strike by our current POTUS, highlighting not only the limp ineffectiveness of the action, but also the rank hypocrisy of the ‘decider’.
The Trump Doctrine Was Written By CNN
Of all the reactions to President Donald Trump’s cruise missile strike on Thursday, the least convincing was the impulse by supporters such as Sen. Marco Rubio and John Bolton to label this a “decisive” act. Hardly. In fact, Trump’s strike was reminiscent of the kind of low-risk cruise missile attacks that Bill Clinton favored against Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan — and that Republicans mocked for their symbolic, ineffectual nature. After 9/11, you’ll recall, President George W. Bush vowed, in a swipe at his predecessor, “When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.”
Looks like we’re back to killing camels. Far from decisive, Trump’s decision to fire 59 cruise missiles against a single air base in Syria was considerably smaller than the action that President Barack Obama was considering to enforce his “red line” in 2013 before he lost his nerve. Obama was on the verge of approving an air campaign to destroy Bashar al-Assad’s air defenses and air force — what Secretary of State John Kerry described at the time as an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.” Trump, by contrast, merely took one air base out of operation for less than a day.
This is hardly the only reversal evident in this cruise missile strike — in fact, the psychological impact of this attack was greatly heightened because it was so unexpected. It was ordered, after all, by the same man who tweeted back in 2013: “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!” And the same man who, as recently as last October, warned that Hillary Clinton’s plans for greater involvement in Syria would “lead to World War III.” And the same man who has shown so little interest in the suffering of the Syrian people that he has attempted to issue an executive order ending all refugee admissions from that country. And the same man who ran on a quasi-isolationist, “America First” platform that disdained the use of military force for anything but the defense of American interests, narrowly defined.