Not all (fill in the blank) believe (fill in the blank), are (fill in the blank), and behave by (fill in the blank)

Not all (fill in the blank) believe (fill in the blank), are (fill in the blank), and behave by (fill in the blank).

Maybe 2016 will be a better year.  Sadly, we are at a point in our nation where people ascribe all sorts of beliefs and behaviors to all members of various groups.  Whether the grouping be ethnicity, race, religious, gender, economic, political, age, employment,   locality, or some other in the nearly endless list of possibilities, folks rush to (usually) directly associate all members of a group with the characteristics, beliefs, and actions evidenced by one (or an incredibly small proportion) of that group.

Saying all white males are racist because some white males belonged/belong to the KKK is pure nonsense. It is no less offensive than saying all black youths are thugs and murderers because some black youths have rioted, looted, and killed each other.  

The intensity of the language and attacks are growing.  Perhaps folks are being incited by those with personal agendas or others with deep rooted and unreasonable prejudices.  But whatever the cause, the evil language and attacks are escalating, leading to increasing tensions in nearly every segment of society.  The media, conservative and liberal, relish in beating their drums to stoke the intensity.  

Absolutely, there are disreputable, villainous, and even evil people.  But they are not so because of some identifying characteristic or grouping.  They are simply disreputable, villainous, or evil individuals.  Period.  They are not disreputable, villainous, or evil because they are white, black, brown, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, straight, gay, tall, short, democrat, republican, old, young, poor, middle-class, wealthy, educated, employed, unemployed, or any other group.  The inability to separate and recognize people as individuals is very troubling.  One example is blaming the actions of a group from decades or centuries ago and then demanding recompense today for those actions of yesteryear.

Stated differently, people in contemporary America demand action not for injuries they have individually and personally suffered, but for injuries suffered by others decades or centuries ago.  This is similar to the ethnic hatred dominating many parts of Europe and the Middle East.  Centuries old hatred that impedes progress towards peace.  Centuries old dogma unbent by today's reality.

Maybe in 2016 our nation can stem, then reverse this trend.  While possible, I sense it will not occur, in large part because of the national political machinations.  Both major political parties demonize their opponents.  Candidates likewise, uttering outlandish comment after outlandish comment.  Thus feeding into divisive identity generalities that have no basis in fact.  The politicians seek to garner support from the unsettled and dissatisfied electorate by ascribing beliefs and behaviors to everyone in an identifiable group based on the actions of a few from within that group.  Shameful political grandstanding!

The only reason this is happening is because the people are unhappy with the course of current events.  They are unhappy with their current situation.  And too many people are telling them other group(s) is/are the reason(s) for their unhappiness.  If the majority of the nation was happy, the purveyors of the divisive rhetoric would not find a fertile environment into which to plant these seeds of discontent.  The talk show hosts, political pundits, and social commentators would have no audiences.  The opinion writers would gain no traction with outlandish assertions.  Elected officials and aspirants could not mount election campaigns based on negativity and demagoguery.  

Perhaps then there would be no protests in our streets and on our campuses.  Perhaps the labor force participation rate would be more than 62.5%.  Perhaps more than 57.5% of eligible voters would exercise their franchise.  Perhaps there wouldn't be more than 400 murders per year in Chicago.  Maybe the middle class would be expanding, rather than declining.  Perhaps wages would rise.

Perhaps, but not likely, because too many influential people are counting on you to feel like a victim and blame identifiable groups.  

But we can hope, because not all (fill in the blank) believe (fill in the blank), are (fill in the blank), and behave by (fill in the blank).

Before deciding to use military force UPDATED: 12-31-15

The incessant presidential campaigning and terrorist attacks across the world and at home prompt all matter of candidates and talking heads to advocate employing some variation of military force. Setting aside, for the moment, that some candidates ignorantly and narrowly define war and combat solely as large numbers of infantry "boots on the ground" in some foreign country, employing military force to attack and kill others is war. It is war, whether the weapons originate from ground, naval, or air forces in numbers large or small. It is war, no matter how candidates and posers may want to state or nuance otherwise. And going to war is an action so serious that the Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to declare war. Sending our armed forces into harm’s way in the absence of a declaration of war, as done over the past several decades under multiple congresses and presidents, has proven to be folly time and time again. Three actions are required by our country to correct the all too frequent contemplation of and ultimate use of military force.

If a matter of national security warrants use military force, Congress must be involved and pass a declaration of war. Absent the commander-in-chief authorizing repulsing an immediate threat or attack on our nation, the nation must join in the decision to use military force through Congress. The unsatisfactory trend of resolutions or authorizations for the use of military force short of declarations of war must end.

Men and women have been sent to fight and die, during times the electorate was deeply divided as to the justification. In my lifetime, whether it was Vietnam or Iraq, the nation was not certain the decision was the right one. And since Congress was not asked to declare war, the use of authorizations short of a formal declaration of war diminished what authority was provided the presidents, who essentially exercised unilateral decisions regarding employment of military force.

Declaring war, by its very nature, is accorded the pinnacle of seriousness it warrants. To expend blood and treasure in defending the nation, including meeting approved treaty obligations, is the most important action undertaken by the president and Congress. Sadly, it has become banal and trivial in the political spectrum, due to the lack of congressional accountability. Declaring war means the nation is willing to do whatever is required to win, as the nation willingly undertakes the sacrifices necessary for achieving unconditional victory. All elements of national power are brought to bear. Every family contributes, some more than others. But for far too many decades, only some families contributed, as currently seen by one-half of one percent of the nation serving in the armed forces.

So, update, reinstate, and activate the military draft. Members of Congress and the presidents do not have "skin the game," as the saying goes. Except for the occasional, rare volunteer, the sons and daughters of members of Congress are not likely to go in harm's way as a result of the so-called authorizations for use of military force. It is so easy for politicians to send your son or daughter to war, when not sending their own. To correct this, revise and activate the military draft to (1) include females as well males, (2) eliminate loopholes used by the sons and daughters of the privileged and wealthy to avoid military service, and (3) select a true cross section of American citizens for mandatory military service of a minimum of three consecutive years of active duty. It is also a matter of national equality.

Equally important in ensuring congressional and presidential understanding and appreciation of what it means to declare war, amend the Constitution to require all members of congress, the president and vice president to have served at least three consecutive years of honorable active duty in the armed forces to be eligible for election or appointment. If the civilian leadership is empowered with the power and authority to declare war, then it must have a working knowledge of the armed forces based on personal experience. Simply put, if a citizen wants to serve our nation as president, vice president, or member of congress, then he/she must first serve the nation as a member of its armed forces. This is also a matter of equality.

In sum, if circumstances warrant deciding to use military force, Congress must debate and vote to declare war. In order to ensure equal representation of the people in this most serious of actions, revise and activate the military draft. And amend the constitution to mandate a minimum of three consecutive years of honorable military active duty as an eligibility requirement for the offices of president, vice president, or member of congress.

UPDATE: 12-31-15

This New York Times offers the same opinion as expressed above: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/opinion/sunday/a-fearful-congress-sits-out-the-war-against-isis.html?hpw&rref=sunday-review&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Where best American leadership?

On 12 December, President Obama stated, "“In the past seven years, we’ve transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change." Regardless of one's opinion about climate change, the larger issue is one of American leadership, particularly as viewed by our country's chief executive. Of where best to invest in and wield that leadership. The president's statement speaks volumes to this critical matter.

Saying "we've transformed" states rather emphatically his position. Specifically, that he did not and does not see the role of America to lead in international security matters, a plank in both of his campaigns. He set about to reduce (transform if you will) American leadership in this area, as seen in his decision to lead from behind in his failed approach to Libya. Thus, his views require transformation away from being a nation that leads the world in international security matters, yielding to others who might seek this role. A dangerous abdication of the historic international role America has played, most notably in WWI and WWII, as well as during the post WWII era of the Soviet Union's expansionist aspirations. Certainly, this role was poorly played when the nation reached too far by seeking to nation build, leading to negative results in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller proxy wars. But American international security leadership has been more positive than negative. However, Obama sought the presidency determined to transform the country and its place amongst the nations of the world.

Stating "fighting climate change" is also an emphatic declaration of his position. Since words matter, "fighting" is very telling. He could have said "counter," "correct," "resolve," or even simply "fix." He sees climate change as an adversary worthy of engaging to defeat. Whether or not you accept his position, or whether or not you believe the agreement will change our climate, or whether or not you believe the other nations will actually abide by the agreement is immaterial to understanding Obama's views on American leadership.

By his words and actions, it is clear he does not see America as the world's leader in matters regarding international security. So it follows that he does not see international security as a threat worthy of his concern. His responses to questions from the media in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks were exceptionally telling. Media from around the world were looking to the American president to take the lead in this international matter. But he did not. And taking a look at his action of the past seven years provides clear and convincing examples of his views in this arena, with the Iranian nuclear agreement being the most startling example.

So here we are, with a president proud of transforming American leadership from international security to one climate change. At a time multiple threats are visiting death and carnage across the world. At a time the threat to the American homeland is rising. At a time American influence is waining across the globe. At a time of immense excessive federal government spending driving up extraordinary debt, threatening the entire national economy.

The unasked question is why not do both, lead in climate change and international security? It was not a zero sum endeavor. Why not add climate change leadership to the mantle of responsibility for international security?

If a nuclear weapon is employed by North Korea or Iran or some non-state actor, what does Obama think will happen? What reactions would he forecast? And what of the influence on the climate of these action? What of the impact on the American economy? What happens when another 9/11 level attack occurs in the homeland? What of the growing influence and, dare it be said, leadership of a resurgent Russia in the middle east? What if the Islamist threat takes control of the petroleum assets in the middle east? What about the aggressive posture of China in the western Pacific region?

How does Obama's transformed United States leadership prepare us in the face of threats to international security? If something tragic occurs, will it be said he made wise decisions on where to invest in and wield American leadership?
     

Ultimate conspiracy theory

Not one for accepting or espousing conspiracy theories, I nevertheless remember the old saying, "even paranoids have enemies."  So in a rare moment of fantasy (or oxygen deprivation), the ultimate conspiracy theory came to mine relative to this election cycle.

The media are colluding with Clinton and Trump to assure her election as President.

Think about it for a moment.  The coverage of Trump is astronomical compared to stories about other candidates.

Trump offers one more idiotic, horrendous, banal, inflammatory, sexist, racist, etc., etc., etc. comment every day, which the media then exploits by exceptional amount of coverage.  The more incendiary his rhetoric, the more coverage he gets.  On issues of the day, he mouths comments sure to offend.  And the comments play right into Clinton's plan.  It could be argued that in cold, clear analysis his commentary reads like and sounds like something Clinton would specifically want him to say, so that she can come out with her counter Trump commentary.

All along, media covers Trump's outlandish commentary, fanning the flames of disgust.  This disgust, engineered by the Clinton campaign, will manifest itself in the general election to hand the presidency to Clinton.  Of course, before the general election, Trump must first get the GOP nomination.  Once more, in this conspiracy theory, the three conspiracists (media, Trump, and Clinton) work to "excite" the fringes of the GOP in order to drown out the superior messaging of other candidates, thereby pressing for Trump to get the party's nomination.  Trump's disgusting, inflammatory rhetoric grows day-by-day and so does coverage by the media.

The rhetoric provides softballs for Clinton to effortlessly hit over the fence, all the while expending not very much energy (of any kind) as she coasts to the Dem nomination (or is that coronation).

If this wild idea has foundation, then Trump and Clinton work on the messaging he will provide that benefits her, with the media agreeing to provide extraordinary levels of coverage for the unbelievable words coming out of Trump's mouth.  Other candidate messages are obscured.  Fringe elements of the GOP get whipped into a lather.  And a path to the GOP nomination is paved.

Once it gets to the general election, Clinton vs Trump, it does not take a genius to see how the results will play out.

Thank goodness I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

   

The first shoe dropped (Updated 12-7-15)

On the 74th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, this blog has been updated.

The first shoe dropped, as the Secretary of Defense announced that all military occupational specialities (MOS) will be open to women. This decision runs contrary to the Marine Corps recommendation that "front line," most notably MarSoc, infantry and artillery, positions be restricted to qualified males (note: not all males qualify for these assignments).  This recommendation came after an exhaustive, comprehensive, and realistic combat skills evaluation the Corps completed, which unequivocally demonstrated that gender integrated units performed worse on combat mission essential skills and tasks than did male only units. It must be highlighted that the evaluation was planned and conducted based upon significant combat lessons learned from our recent wars and therefore is not to be taken lightly.  Another telling indicator of the seriousness was the absence of Marine Corps General Dunford, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and immediate past Commandant of the Marine Corps.

We can easily predict what will accompany the inevitability of the second shoe dropping: lowering of standards.  Specifically, progressive activists and others who have never served in the military will demand, and likely get, something along the line of "gender adapted" or "gender neutral" standards. This will be done to further their progressive "social justice" objectives by mandating assignment of women to heretofore closed specialities and units, not in order to meet any compelling military or combat necessity.  The issue at hand is not arcane or academic.  It is one of life and death and combat survival, which demand high standards.

And high standards have already come under attack, such as the arguments about the "equity" of the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course Combat Endurance Test, which males and females have failed, though the female failure rate is almost total.  And the failures were not because of a lack of desire.  (By the way, when I attended The Basic School, there was neither an IOC nor a Combat Endurance Test, indicating hard fought combat lessons learned have been used by the Marine Corps to improve and make training and qualification even more rigorous.)  Failure came from inability to meet demanding combat proven standards.  As the Military Times reported, "By July 2014, only 20 female officers had attempted the course.  Only one made it through the Combat Endurance Test, and none made it to the end." The failure rate for males, at about 10% in recent reports, indicates that not all males can meet the standards.  Just as does the reported 75% failure rate at BUDS/UDT.  But high standards and combat effectiveness do not concern progressive activists, as they press for their vision of the U.S. military.

Once more the liberals are using the military as their social science laboratory, in order to advance their progressive views.  With SecDef's decision, they will now undoubtedly declare that since a MOS is open to women, it would be unfair to exclude women based on existing "male based" standards.  In the ultimate irony and hypocrisy, these folks will clamor for gender based standards designed for women, just after clamoring that it was sexist to exclude females.  So it can be predicted the standards will be reduced for females, which will then lead to some males declaring that the male standards are too high and they should be allowed to be evaluated against the new female standards.  Otherwise they will have standing to claim sex discrimination.  (Of course, the transgender Marine can choose whichever standards he/she decides are easiest.)  Thus, the requisite high standards will be lowered across the board, endangering those allowed into specialities and units that once required demanding standards be met and maintained.

What all the progressive activists miss is that combat, particularly ground combat of the grueling sort experienced for weeks on end during previous wars, is not the place to pursue their agenda.

Certainly, some women in our recent wars performed extraordinarily, admirably, and heroically on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, with many wounded and killed.  The Lioness and Female Engagement Teams are excellent examples.  However, these few examples were not born from fully gender integrated units from the four man Fire Team up to the Infantry Regiment. Let alone special operations forces such as SEALs, Rangers, Combat Controllers, etc.  The best example of the impact of gender integration was the aforementioned Marine Corps evaluation.  The Marines took the right approach, by examining the issue based on combat unit mission performance.  This is how we organize and fight.  It is the ultimate team effort.  And the results were clear, male only units performed the combat mission more effectively and efficiently than gender integrated units.

In spite of the results, it is inevitable that second shoe must drop for the progressive activists to achieve their ultimate goal.

But the price for the failure of their agenda will be needless loss of life and combat mission failure.  But the progressive activists will not be around to take any responsibility for their part in this abysmal decision.  They will not stand next me and fellow Patriot Guard Riders at the foreseeable military funerals.  The progressive activists will not be publicly condemned.  They will not be sent to jail.  And they certainly will not be on the front lines, carrying a rifle, ill suited and ill prepared to take the fight to the enemy.

Free speech

There are times when a political cartoon squarely hits the target.

It is time to walk away

Mr. Trump, it is time to walk away.

You are damaging the nation and contributing to Clinton's run for the presidency.  

Bombast, insults, and empty rhetoric are not qualifiers for the highest office in the land.

Perhaps, just perhaps, tapping into the anger of conservatives across the nation has served a purpose.  But your attempting to carry that standard has failed.  Alienating more than inspiring, your campaign is injurious to the American political landscape.  Just walk away.

Walk away and prepare to support the GOP nominee.

If you don't think your campaign is failing, consider the numbers.  Even at 25% in some polls, that means 75% of the people do not want you.  But a 3-to-1 advantage, someone else is preferred over you.

Shackle your ego, close your mouth, cease TV interviews, and walk away.

Do it for your you country. 

Next questions for Mrs. Clinton

Here are the next questions for Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, your foundation has amended tax returns for multiple years during the time you were secretary of state.  These amended returns for 2010-2013 indicate the foundation received $20,000,000 in government funds, the majority of it from foreign governments.

Question.  Why was it not a conflict of interest to accept funds from foreign governments when you were secretary of state?  (Unasked will be the logically associated question about soliciting funds from those governments.)  

Question.  What actions did you take on behalf of the foreign governments that gave money to your foundation? 

Paying for a college/university education

At the beginning, the following are stipulated:

• Earning that first undergraduate degree remains a solid predictor of future success.
• The cost of obtaining that first undergraduate degree has unreasonably risen over time.  One major contributing factor, seen first hand as a staff member at two public universities, has been the enormous increase in administrative personnel on campuses, particularly in senior positions.
• Too many students enter colleges and universities inadequately prepared for the rigors of undergraduate studies, ultimately prolonging their studies or resulting in dropping out.
• Too many universities, particularly in urban settings, require students to reside on campus, at a much higher cost.
• Too many students are ill advised, both before and after beginning their studies as to which major they should pursue.  Consequently, time and money are wasted in classes outside of the requirements for the eventual majors the students pursue, contributing to four year degrees now taking between five and six years to earn. This, of course, directly impacts student debt.  If it takes 50% more time to earn a degree, the cost rises at least another 50%.
• Too many colleges and universities offer majors that do little if anything to prepare degree earners for future employment.  Consequently, students leave with large debts and have significant difficulty finding meaningful employment.
• Too much, way too much, of the financial aid models rely on loans, either student or parent.
• Post secondary education is focused too much on being a business, rather than providing schooling.

How to pay for that first undergraduate degree?  Several, including some running for president, advocate having the American taxpayer pick up the tab.  News flash, it is not the task or role of the government to provide post secondary education.  Nor is it the role of government to provide jobs.  (For another view on government supported post secondary education, look at the option provided at the end of this piece.)

One route to pay for college is to work for it.  That is, the student works and earns the money to pay the costs.  It has been and is possible.  By no means is it easy.  And it requires tremendous self discipline, concentration, time management, and (at times) creative scheduling.  I know.  I did it.

My family could not afford to pay for my education, so it was known well in advance that I would have to foot the bill.  I began saving, by working after school, on the weekends, and over the summers of my junior and senior years in high school.  Although I could have attended a lower cost public university, I chose a more costly private one, meaning that I would have to work while attending school.  First in a grocery store, then in a restaurant  and finally in an auto center, my freshman year was difficult.  I stuck it out, and stayed with the company running the auto center for the remainder of my four year pursuit of that BA degree.  

I carried a full load (16 hours/4 classes) and worked full time (minimum of 40 hours per week).  Finding the right job with the right scheduling flexibility was key of course.  In addition to working every Saturday and Sunday, I worked three of the weekdays, normally always on Friday.  With an understanding boss, I took the late shifts each of those weekdays, attending classes in the morning and then heading off to work.  Of course, during the summers I worked the full 40 hours, with some rare overtime thrown in.  I found a way to make it all work and do not feel I missed out on any of the important college experiences.  

I was not in a fraternity, so that distraction didn't exist.  I did have a steady girlfriend (more on that in a bit), so didn't miss out on the romance.  I also was known to attend the occasional party or concert with my classmates, so didn't miss out on the social life.  For the first two years, I lived in the dorm.  For the last two, I lived out in town.  Up front, I won't claim to have been an outstanding student, but I was passing.

In addition to carrying the full load and working full time, my girlfriend and I married in the middle of my junior year at age 20.  There I was, married, carrying a full load, and working full-time.  The bills were being paid, with roughly 57% of my monthly take home going to the university.  Another 23% went for the one bedroom apartment.  The remaining 20% of my take home paid for food, gas for the one car (a clunker), and all other bills.  I did not seek loans.  I did not receive scholarships.  We were not racking up debt.  In fact, we were saving a little bit every month.  

In my senior year, my wife did get a minimum wage job, which made our lives easier.  We moved into a nicer place.  And we could afford a once monthly trip the best pizza place in town.  Normally, Saturday nights were either with friends playing cards or watching TV in that little place of ours.  When the clunker broke down, I walked to and from school and work.  Begrudgingly, we dipped into our savings for a down payment on a used car.  Nothing fancy, just basic transportation.  At work, I had earned small raises over the nearly four years.  Nothing huge, but every little bit helped.

After four years, I graduated with a BA degree.  We were debt free and had some money in the bank.  Determination.  Self-discipline.  Time management.  Some luck.  Delayed gratification.  And a very, very supportive wife.  It was and is possible.  

And there were so very many intangibles that we realized by the route we took.

At graduation, I had a solid six years of employment (full time employment) history, adding together that of my junior and senior years in high school with the four years while in college.  My contemporaries were lucky to have sporadic summer employment.  I had learned how to work for supervisors, accept criticism, and improve my performance.  After a while, I also learned lower level supervision.  We knew how to manage our personal finances, never bouncing a check or missing a payment.  That in turn built a solid credit history.  We knew how to purchase and sell an automobile.  We knew how to budget our resources.  We knew how to enter into a lease.  I knew how to manage my time.  I appreciated the value of hard work.  I learned no job was beneath me, having swept floors, taken out trash, unloaded trucks, shoveled snow to clear paths for the customers, stocked shelves, and run a cash register.  I learned the responsibility of managing a cash box so it perfectly balanced each and every day.  I learned how to work with the public and my co-workers.  And I learned how to earn the respect of others by the quality of the work I did.

All of this and I had my degree.

It is possible to work your way through school, finishing not owing anybody anything, and having grown into a responsible adult ready to tackle the world.     

============================================================================

So you want the government to pay for your schooling?

President Obama and others are touting another expensive, unfunded taxpayer supported program.  This one addresses paying for a college education - America’s College Promise.  It would provide for two years of “free” community college education to all.   (Of course, nothing is really free.)   In recent commentary, Dr. Carroll, chancellor of the San Diego Community College, voiced support for the plan, by (among other points) citing the historical example of the post World War II GI Bill as an illustration meant to justify the president’s proposal. 

One major issue, however, exists in citing the WWII GI Bill (or the Post 9/11 GI Bill for that matter) as justifying the president’s proposal.  After WWII, the nation decided the GI Bill recipients had earned its financial support for higher education by honorably serving their nation in the armed forces during wartime.  There is no such requirement for serving the nation in America’s College Promise.  It is just free money.

There is no doubt paying for college is challenging.  If the nation believes it is critically important to incur more national (and state) debt in order to expend federal (and state) tax dollars to pay for or defray the costs of a college education, then loosely citing the post WWII GI Bill and its relative the Post 9/11 GI Bill for justification can be instructive.  Specifically, in order to receive this new benefit, the recipients must first earn it.

Just as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines earned the benefits of the various GI Bills, let the intended citizen recipients of America’s College Promise earn it by satisfactorily completing three years of mandatory national service to begin upon graduating from high school.

The nation can greatly benefit from mandatory national service for all able-bodied citizens.  It was estimated that in 2014 approximately 4.1 million students started high school.  For the purposes of this piece, it is estimated that 15% of that student population would eventually be ineligible for mandatory national service for a variety of reasonable causes.  Based on this estimate, there would be roughly 3.5 million citizens eligible for mandatory national service beginning in the summer of 2018. 

Imagine how nearly 3.5 million young citizens can serve their nation, performing all manner of things that directly benefit their fellow citizens, while gaining many direct and indirect benefits.  From national defense to working in federal parks, the participants will serve across the nation for the benefit of its people.   

At age 18 or 60 days subsequent to graduation from high school, whichever occurs last, all able bodied citizens will be required to serve a period of three years mandatory national service.  Said national service would include serving in one of the existing programs (some of which would be converted from volunteer status), such as but not limited to the following: Armed Forces; Peace Corps; greatly expanded Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA); US Army Corps of Engineers; National Park Service; Fish and Wildlife Service; Bureau of Land Management; US Forest Service; US Geological Survey; National Resource Conservation; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency; US Bureau of Reclamation; Americorps; and Federal Emergency Management Agency Corps.  It is also offered that national service could support state and local programs benefitting all citizens.

Only upon satisfactory and successful completion of the three-year stint in national service would these citizens have earned and be eligible for a variety of direct federal benefits, such as federal student financial aid and, should the nation decide it is justified, America’s College Promise.  By their national service, the citizen recipients earn the educational benefits from their nation. 

Along the way, they would also receive indirect benefits, such as employment of an important segment of the population at a critical point in their lives (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in July of 2014, only 51.9% of youth were employed at this normally high water point of summer employment); an early employment history; acquiring skills for personal financial management, which will have long term benefits for the nation; promotion of equality, because everyone serves; realizing critical maturity prior to attending post secondary education or entering the work force; learning service above self; instilling a work ethic and teamwork; and instilling national pride.

If satisfactorily completing mandatory national service is not embraced as a prerequisite for America’s College Promise, then the program should not be approved.  The nation cannot and should not provide “free” benefits.

POTUS and Congress are failing the American people

A year ago, POTUS said his strategy was to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIL (ISIS). Just three days ago, POTUS stated, “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them.” This seems to me to be a dramatic change in strategy. In the aftermath of the preplanned and determined attacks in Paris on Friday, his statement is being justifiably criticized. On the 15 November Sunday talk shows, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said, "We absolutely agree that this was an act of war by ISIL." Over the past year-plus, in the view of this retired military officer, POTUS and Congress have failed in their responsibilities regarding this war.

POTUS and his Executive Branch have failed to recognize and react to international and national security concerns associated with the war against ISIL (ISIS), if we are indeed at war.  For example, no war has ever been won by air power alone.  On July 6, POTUS proclaimed, "Our coalition has now hit ISIL with more than 5,000 airstrikes.  We’ve taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps."  His statement needs to be put into context for an accurate understanding.  During the 43 day air campaign in Operation Desert Storm, 109,876 combat sorties, or an average of 2,555 per day, were flown (source: www.u-shistory.com).  Even after that air campaign, we launched a ground offensive.  In the nearly year and one-half of Obama's air campaign against ISIL (ISIS), the 5,000 sorties he noted amount to less than ten strikes per day.  Not exactly an overwhelming use of military power.  It seems to match Secretary of State Kerry's September 2013 description of the plan for the ill-fated air campaign in Syria, when he said, “That is exactly what we’re talking about doing — unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”  Even Senator Diane Feinstein sees the current strategy is failing, stating, "It has become clear that limited air strikes and support for Iraqi forces and the Syrian opposition are not sufficient to protect our country and our allies." 

We are either at war with ISIL (ISIS) or we are not.  Stating we are at war with ISIL (ISIS) and not forcibly and comprehensively engaging the enemy with all forms of military, as well as other, power is folly.  Putting American lives at risk in combat without a determination to win the war is criminal.  (Make no mistake, Mr. President, those aircrew, special operators, and others engaged in your even less than half-hearted effort against ISIL (ISIS) are at war.)  

Obama's containment strategy implemented by less than ten combat sorties per day; an occasional drone strike killing of notable figures, like Jihadi John; occasional rescue operations, one leading to the death of a U.S. soldier; 50 special operators assigned to the fight (we sent more troops to battle the Ebola outbreak); and supporting allies may provide disjointed tactical success and good PR and political sound bites, but they are woefully inadequate in a war.  The recent attacks in Paris irrefutably underscore the failure of this containment strategy.  Congress enabling this failed strategy is equally criminal.

Congress has the sole authority for providing funding, including that for our military.  In passing Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress has only partially fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities.  Seeing the failed strategy of the Obama Administration in this war on ISIL (ISIS), Congress is obligated to use its power.  How can this be done, when so many errors compound one upon the other?  Sequestration brought about by abysmal expenditures exceeding revenues.  Voting to draw down the military at a time when the existential threat posed by ISIL (ISIS) is so very real.  Irresponsibly enacting costly domestic legislation that drags on the economy.  Then puffing out one's collective chests stating they have to "support the troops."  Damn right the troops need to be supported, but by corralling the ill conceived and ill executed Obama strategy.  Cut off the funding for combat operations (except for force protection) until or unless the executive branch provides Congress with a comprehensive and convincing strategy to actually defeat, not contain, ISIL (ISIL).  And this strategy can not be made public, as all politicians are prone to do.  If we are in a war, we must fight to win.  

As Sunday fades, both POTUS and Congress are failing the American people.  When ISIL (ISIS) attacks on American soil, it will be too late.  Tragically, it is not a matter of if the attacks will come, but only when and where.  Absent dramatic action by Congress and POTUS, we will see Americans killed.  Regardless of the political season, Congress has a larger responsibility to the American people.  Regardless of the past, POTUS has a responsibility to the American people.  That responsibility is to provide for the security of the nation.   

              

What do they have in common?

What do these women have in common?

Ms. Clinton, Ms. Click, and Ms. Goldberg are hypocrites.

Democrat presidential aspirant Ms. Clinton voices advocacy for women's issues, yet fails to criticize a man who told her of his desire to "strangle" Ms. Fiorina.

Progressive professor Ms. Click voices advocacy for First Amendment rights for students, then calls for "some muscle" to forcibly remove a photo-journalist taking pictures in a public place.

Liberal TV show personality Ms. Goldberg voices advocacy for social censorship, saying, "“we have a history of utilizing words to harm people and hurt people and the people who have been on the other side of it, I think are at the point where they’re saying, this is not okay anymore.” Then she makes harmful and hateful statements about Ms. Fiorina, then attempts to pass them off as a "comic comment" or "humorous things."

Liberal, progressive, democrats, and hypocrites. Lots in common.

Next question for Mrs. Clinton

Ms. Clinton, how does laughing when someone says they'd like to strangle Ms. Fiorina advance women's issues, demonstrate leadership, or support American democracy?

Female bullies on The View

After cast members of The View criticized the looks of Ms. Fiorina, using words like demented and Halloween mask, Ms. Fiorina appeared on the program.

During that appearance, Ms. Goldberg made this comment on 6 November, "I wondered, because we saw some of the — that you were a little upset with us about a comic comment that was made. And so, how will you steel your skin? How will you get a thicker skin to accept some of the humorous things that will be said about you?"

How on earth can someone describe the severely personal criticisms about ones appearance as "comic comment" or "humorous things?"

Serious, polite, and professional people can't. But female bullies, as described in the book "The Odd Girl Out," can and do. 

The View is neither serious, polite, nor professional. It is simply a gaggle of female bullies. That not one of the cast members repudiated Ms. Goldberg's above descriptions is convincing and irrefutable confirmation.

Questions for Mrs. Clinton

Here's a question for Mrs. Clinton.

Picture taken in March 1999 in Bosnia

How does your lying about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia differ from Brian Williams lying about being in a helicopter that came under fire?

He was removed from his job for lying to the American people.  

Here's another question for Mrs. Clinton.  Why shouldn't you be removed from consideration for elective office?

Adding a voice to the chorus

Adding a voice to the growing chorus, let me observe that the university and college censorship trend is quite disturbing.  Under the guise of preventing students from hearing or reading something that may be "hurtful," it seems academia (both instructors and administrators) is diligently endeavoring to wrap a cocoon around the brains of their impressionable students, concurrent with an indoctrination of entitled victimization.  Apart from academia's questionable definition of hurtful, their efforts, perhaps politically motivated, are both absurd and endangering.

Absurd, because in today's electronic world, ideas and thoughts can not be completely filtered.  (Nor should they be.)  There is no way for academia to totally block out thoughts and ideas it self-righteously determines to be unworthy of discussion on campus.  With virtually every student glued to a mobile communications device, the thoughts and ideas are out there.  (As an aside, it is not surprising to learn academia is seeking to block some social media, under the guise of preventing "hateful," "racist," and "sexist" language.  That such language originates from the students is apparently not the issue to academia)  The current censorship is also absurd because it is exactly the opposite of that what academia demands as they offer ridiculous courses, commentary, and demands: academic freedom and free speech.  As absurd as the new censorship is, the greatest threat is how it endangers the students.

Preventing those with opposing views from speaking, demanding "trigger warnings,"  perpetuating segregation of thought and speech, limiting free speech to certain designated geographic locations on campus, and other misguided actions do a tremendous disservice to the students, by failing to prepare them for reality.

Does academia really believe they can protect students from something academia defines as "hurtful?"  From anything that may provide the basis for offense?  Totally impossible!  With more than 300,000,000 people in America, somewhere, someone is taking offense to something said or done by someone else, no matter how innocuous or disconnected.  That is simply part of the human experience.  We do not all agree, a fact we should celebrate.  Academia's ridiculous assumption that life can be made otherwise ignores reality.  Not all people share all the same views, nor should they.

But people can choose to take offense at all manner of things, major-to-minor-to-ridiculous.  The color of a shirt.  The type of vehicle one drives.  The music one prefers.  The movies one likes.  The weight of someone.  The height of someone else.  This or that type of food.  Political views.  The list is endless.  The key is not, as academia would have us believe, an offense or disagreement, but rather how informed and intelligent people react.  

If you don't like a particular type of music, don't listen to it.  If someone is spouting what you consider drivel, ignore him/her.  The choice is yours.  But it is an unwise choice for academia to attempt to wrap students in such a false cocoon, because it actually endangers their futures.

As that recent student enters the workplace, he/she will be unprepared to deal with reality, the friction occurring within human relationships.  If the boss demands they show up for work, prepared and on time, or face negative consequences, the recent student can't claim offense.  If the person two cubicles down legally states (exercising free speech) an opposing few, the recent student can't demand the individual only do so is a designated "free speech zone."  (Note to academia: the entirety of our nation is a designated free speech zone.)  If the recent student fails to perform his/her job and employment is terminated, the recent student can't cry foul at the "hurtful" action.  If the recent student happens upon a parade celebrating our veterans, he/she can't claim injury due to being indoctrinated that the military is evil.

Ill prepared by the current censorship trend on the campuses of our universities and colleges, once the student depart they will not be ready to take on the world, to overcome challenges, to ignore the trivial in pursuit of greatness, forsake complaints in favor of happiness.  Rather, it is feared recent students will flounder without the necessary skills for adaptation and acceptance.

Colleges and universities should be where tolerance and coping skills are acquired and refined.  Deal with the uncomfortable.  Reason with the absurd argument.  Toughen one's character. 

For crying out loud, if anywhere should be a haven for the exchange of controversial and different views, it should be the campus of a university or college.    

Veterans Day 2015

In a few weeks, Veterans Day 2015 will be upon us, and there is a real lesson to be learned.  

Across the nation, many will rightly acknowledge the day.  Some businesses will offer a one day special for our nation's veterans.  Some towns and cities will hold parades.  Old graybeards may stand a little straighter and prouder.  Some schools will invite veterans into their classrooms.  Comrades from decades past will reach out to one another, confirming life long bonds.  Scrapbooks and memorabilia may be pulled from the backs of closets.  Some local newspapers will likely run stories about the heroes living among us.  Even some elected officials will carve time from their "busy" schedules to recognize the date.

POTUS will likely do something, though not genuinely in my mind.  Genuine recognition of the day will be accomplished by other elected officials, like fellow veterans Congressman Hunter and Senator Cotton.

It is also likely those seeking office will ensure some "appropriate" activity is on their calendar that day.  Again, for some (like Clinton) it will be a chore to endure as part of a run for office.  Had Webb remained in the contest, it would definitely not be a chore, but an obligation to his fellow vets.

The perception that veterans are those grizzled old timers, gray of beard and long of years, is slowly giving way to the "twenty and thirty something" young warriors from our most recent wars.

Regardless of age, branch of service, or time served, there is one immutable fact about our veterans.  Every generation has answered the call.  Every generation has stood tall when the nation asked of it.  Every generation has sacrificed for this country.

The one unfortunate fact, however, is that the percentage of our population that serves this great country is growing smaller, year by year, with less than one-half of one percent of the nation currently serving in uniform.  That means, most regrettably, that the vast majority of the nation are less and less connected with the veterans who have served them.

That is the real lesson for Veterans Day 2015