THE MAN WHO WARNED OF AN AMERICAN NAPOLEON BECAME THE AMERICAN NAPOLEON

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman66.html
Utopia? Hardly

by David Dieteman

The title of Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's jam-packed one-volume history of the Civil War is Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. Hummel's title is connected to an ongoing debate between those who profess to love liberty, namely, between conservatives and libertarians.

In particular, those libertarians who advocate not only the separation of powers into three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – but the additional decentralization of power in such competing levels as municipal (city, township, and county), state, and federal, known as "states' rights" advocates for short (and, perhaps, these days, for scorn), are routinely lampooned, rather than debated, by conservatives.

Well, at least lampooned by so-called "neo"-conservatives...who are so neo, they don't very much resemble the conservatives of not so long ago. This is an oddity in itself. From the very nature of the term, one might think that self-described "conservatives" would tend to remain ideologically consistent – indeed, conserved, or unchanged – over time, at least with regard to the eternal questions, such as the best way to divide governmental powers so as to protect individual liberty.

Nope.

Perhaps it is because there is a war involved. The neo-cons appear entirely too much in favor of war as a tool of social policy. They appear to ignore the terrible evils – the genuine and unavoidable human suffering which comes with war. Bombing Belgrade, Sudan, and other places – and shooting down planes over Peru – kills men, women, and children. Killing should never be treated lightly. In other words, those who advocate militarism must do so only on the most serious grounds.

The above paragraph, of course, is at best a surmise, an exercise in psychologism. Whatever the reason, those who otherwise understand the separation of powers recoil from a robust concept of federalism. Worse, they label those who defend the American constitutional system of federal power as "utopians."

Hardly. Back to Hummel.

Although the title of Hummel's history of the Civil War may be perplexing to some, the title comes from a speech by Abraham Lincoln to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, on January 27, 1838. As Hummel writes, "The young Lincoln was warning about the potential danger of a future Napoleon subverting the United States Constitution." (p. 366, n. 1). Napoleon's armies tore up Europe from 1799 until he was poisoned in 1821 (by French monarchists), so when Lincoln spoke, he was speaking about recent history. This is like those of us today speaking about the 1984 Olympics. Yes, that's 17 years ago.

Here is what Lincoln said:

Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. (Hummel, 366)

Disturbingly, the man who warned of an American Napoleon became the American Napoleon.

Which brings me to a personal confession: Joe Sobran has softened my thinking on Lincoln. When I came to study the Civil War, and study it in-depth, over eight years, it occurred to me that, truly, the conflict is more properly named the War for Southern Independence. The Northern view of the war which I had been spoon-fed in school parrots the earlier English view of the colonial (American) War of Independence – right down to laughing at the notion that the relevant rebels could possibly claim to be fighting for freedom, merely because of the issue of slavery. By the way, the English figured things out the second time around – and rooted for the Confederacy. In that regard, see Sheldon Vanauken's The Glittering Illusion.

This Anglo-Northern myth is exactly that – a myth. Because it is false at worst, biased and incomplete at best, the telling and perpetuation of this counterfeit tale merits correction. In short, this descendent of a Federal army soldier was enraged to find injustice hiding behind a veil of justice. Sobran, however, has a point in arguing that, rather than see Lincoln merely as a villain, it may be appropriate to view Lincoln as a tragic, Oxfordian (you might say Shakespearean) figure.

But back to Hummel's essential point: the war against the Confederacy fundamentally changed the USA. The prosecution of the war turned the USA from an unobtrusive, small government into an intrusive, bloated monstrosity. When the USA forcibly re-absorbed the CSA, this "wonderful" system – now beyond reproach to "neo"-conservatives (maybe "conservatives" should be in quotation marks, rather than the neo) – became not only mandatory, but, according to the Northern theory still dominant today – inescapable.

No part of the USA can ever leave.

Hence the "pledge of allegiance" written by a Massachusetts minister – a self-proclaimed socialist, who was so far to the Left with his social gospel, he was kicked out by his own congregation. Welcome to the United States. You are now here forever, no matter what.

Say, what is the neo-conservative view of federal taxation with respect to those who renounce their US citizenship? More than a few wealthy Americans – many of them from prominent families – have renounced their citizenship in the last decade to escape punitive levels of taxation. Should Uncle Sam confiscate everything owned by such "disloyal" people?

A further question: if an individual citizen may freely renounce his US citizenship, is there a logical reason why an entire state of individual citizens cannot renounce its citizenship? The standard Northern line is that, hey, self-determination is fine in Nicaragua, Vietnam and the Balkans, but absolutely out of the question on the American continent.

The Canadians had better keep their rifles handy – oh, wait, their government is in the process of melting them down for worthless scrap metal. The Fenians, it seems, were a tad early.

And what to make of Texas. The USA backed Texas in its drive for independence from Mexico. The Republic of Texas, which won its independence from Mexico in 1836 – remember the Alamo? – spent perhaps 10 years as an independent nation. It was then annexed by the USA on December 29, 1845.

The annexation, by the way, led to a war – the Mexican War. California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming were taken from Mexico by the USA.

Sixteen years after the independent nation of Texas had been annexed by the USA – in 1861 – the USA refused to let Texas leave the USA. Sorry. There is a piece of paper, known as the Constitution, which means that although areas like Texas may declare their independence of nations such as Mexico – with the backing of the USA – an area like Texas may never declare its independence from the USA. We have different rules, and we don't allow that.

You signed away your independence permanently, and if you care to disagree, we will kill you. Forget the Supreme Court. As President Ulysses S. Grant proclaimed, the highest tribunal available to mankind is the force of arms. And so Texas – which, the Northern myth proclaims, had never left the union via the heresy of "secession" – was forced to ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in order to be "re-admitted" to a Union that it supposedly had never really left.

Notice how the Northern view of the Civil War mirrors the typical Department of Motor Vehicles view of your attempts to renew your drivers' license. It is the nature of behemoth governmental bureaucracies.

By the way, following the Northern approach to the question of secession, should we outlaw divorce?

Of course, the Northern view is merely an incoherent attempt to justify a war, and to defend the morally indefensible – the idea of a compulsory, involuntary, permanent "union" held together by force of arms, against the will of the citizens. On the Northern view, is it possible to ever dump the Constitution of 1789 for a new Constitution – even by way of Amendments or Constitutional Convention? Or are we stuck with it?

And, of course, the Northern view is wrong. The Constitution of 1789 – a document of delegated powers – does not prohibit secession, and the 9th and 10th Amendments must be interpreted to allow for a constitutional right of secession – to say nothing of the natural right of secession so eloquently described in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (a belated Happy Fourth of July to you).

But back again to Hummel, whose Chapters Nine through Thirteen (and Epilogue) make his case rather strongly that the war – allegedly fought for "freedom" – significantly reduced American freedom.

As Hummel notes, "The national government at the time [of the war] had only two sources of revenue: a very low tariff and the sale of public lands." (p 221)

Utopia! But I digress.

"Adjusting for population, the government in Washington was spending approximately $2.50 per person in 1858, or the equivalent of $44 per person today [Hummel was originally published in 1996]. This was less than 2 percent of the economy's total output." (p 221)

Utopia!

How did people survive from the founding of the first European colonies in the New World until 1858, some 200 years (roughly)? By private initiative – also known as work and good works.

Those, such as myself, who advocate genuinely limited government, the separation of powers, and federalism (i.e., "states' rights") recognize that on questions of social policy, there are two questions which must always be answered

1. Is the suggested policy a good idea?

2. Should the government enact the policy?

The answer to the first question will depend on the facts. The answer to the second question is never "yes."

Although I agree with conservatives such as Charley Reese that genuine freedom does not include the abandonment of commitments to family, faith and country, the historical record of mankind's experiments with limited government is not encouraging. By and large, the State – logically distinct from the social order, society, and populace – whenever it has been limited by human design, whether in Venice, the United Provinces of the Netherlands, in England under Magna Carta, in America under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, or in ancient Athens and Rome, has managed to usurp and destroy such limits over time, all the while cooing that such usurpations were "for the better" or "for the common good."

In the USA, this mistake has been repeated. After the Declaration of Independence and the war of secession from England, those men who crafted the Declaration of Independence and fought the War of Independence crafted the Articles of Confederation – which were detested by those who longed for a powerful, centralized state, namely, the nationalists, the misnamed "Federalists," i.e., statists such as Alexander Hamilton, and also by those, like Robert Morris, who financed the War of Independence and who wanted to be repaid – by a Confederate government (as in "Articles of Confederation;" Confederate, then, is the proper term) that could not compel its member states to pay up.

The US, then, voluntarily abandoned the – utopian! – really limited government of the Articles of Confederation for the less limited government of the Constitution. Of course, to the neo-cons, the Constitution as written is, you guessed it, utopian. And so men like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR had to come along to show everyone what had been so misunderstood since 1789, and by men like Jefferson – who advocated the right of secession.

As Hummel writes of pre-Civil War America,

Most Americans paid no taxes whatsoever to any federal officials directly, and their only regular contact with any representatives of central authority was probably through the United States Post Office – if they had any contact at all. Indeed, in New York City, the government delivered only one million letters in 1856 as compared with the ten million carried by private companies. (p 222)

A government post office that isn't a monopoly? Utopia! How dare libertarians suggest a private postal service – you must be against delivering letters at all! Neanderthals! Racists! Homophobes!

Ah, almost forgot to mention that Hummel also notes that the Civil War introduced paper money, which led to counterfeiting (and the Secret Service)(p 226). The private minting of coins was outlawed. And Abraham Lincoln used federal troops to break union strikes – in the North (p 234).

And yet, and yet...these are historical facts.

The USA enjoyed 90 years of independence without government control of every aspect of human existence. And yet if you dare to question such government control today, you are branded as a utopian, a fool on an ivory tower, unwilling to confront the "practical realities" of politics. Here's a practical reality: Americans today are not very free by historical standards, and certainly not by the standards of the Sons of Liberty, who staged the Boston Tea Party.

Utopian my eye.

Roll back the state. It is bloated beyond any reasonable view of the Constitution, and is an affront to the principles of the American founding. Here's a challenge to the neo-cons: dare to imagine a different world than the status quo. There is no reason to conserve the usurpations of the Constitution which were perpetrated by Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR – to name but a few. Americans today face a moral imperative: the state must be contained within the limits of justice.

July 14, 2001

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2001 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.

http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=14942379
~~~~~

Foreign Policy, War and Propaganda

CLICK-HERE!!!!!

Editor, FlyoverPress.com"
date Jan 3, 2007 10:47 AM
subject Foreign Policy, War and Propaganda

A subscriber sent a cut and paste of a post on an Internet forum by Pat Rogers. For those of you who don’t know, Rogers is a double dipping (retired Marine Corps Warrant Officer AND retired NYPD cop) stereotypical Yankee statist jerk. His post has been lightly edited for grammatical clarity. (What do you expect from a jarhead-cop?)

”I make 5-7 long walks with the pup daily, and while strolling through the 'hood I see a lot. Lately the crop of 9-11 year olds has been out on the street with plastic guns, rucks and patrol caps.

“Understand I live in a nice place, and mostly everyone is gov or military, with a mean rank of 0-6/ GS15.

”Today I heard the kids along a stream that runs past the back of my casa—orders, the ratchet sound of the plastic guns etc. I went out on the back porch in time to see a patrol assaulting through a linear ambush.

“After consolidation they took a break and sorted things out. A young voice cut through the forest. ‘THIS TIME YOU HAVE TO BE THE HAJI'S...’

”Yeah, the kids are playing Cowboy's and Haji's. Things just may be getting better....”

End of Post:



“Getting better?” Hardly! This incident is nothing but crystal clear confirmation of the effectiveness of the awesome Yankee occupier’s propaganda machine. That should not be news to anyone, much less the latest crop of victims currently risking life and limb “serving” the interest of the imperial State and its benefactors in the sand pile. All that Rogers has said is that the State is busily preparing another crop to take their place.


Garet Garrett, in his 1952 pamphlet, The Rise of Empire declared "We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire." And went on to conclude…



“It is our turn.

“Our turn to do what?

“Our turn to assume the responsibilities of moral leadership in the world,

“Our turn to maintain a balance of power against the forces of evil everywhere—in Europe and Asia and Africa, in the Atlantic and in the Pacific, by air and by sea…

“Our turn to keep the peace of the world.

“Our turn to save civilization.

“Our turn to serve mankind.



“But this is the language of Empire. The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy. Yet the more that may be added to it the more it is the same language still. A language of power.”



Randolph Bourne rightfully referred to war “the health of the State" and that alone is ample justification for advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy.



As Murray Rothbard put it in For a New Liberty (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty13.asp):



“War has always been the occasion of a great—and usually perma­nent—acceleration and intensification of State power over society. War is the great excuse for mobilizing all the energies and resources of the nation, in the name of patriotic rhetoric, under the aegis and dictation of the State apparatus. It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society. Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest. Society becomes an armed camp, with the values and the morals—as the libertarian Albert Jay Nock once phrased it—of an ‘army on the march.’



“It is particularly ironic that war always enables the State to rally the energies of its citizens under the slogan of helping it to defend the country against some bestial outside menace. For the root myth that enables the State to wax fat off war is the canard that war is a defense by the State of its subjects. The facts, however, are precisely the reverse. For if war is the health of the State, it is also its greatest danger. A State can only ‘die’ by defeat in war or by revolution. In war, therefore, the State frantically mobilizes its subjects to fight for it against another State, under the pretext that it is fighting to defend them.”



It saddens me to see otherwise intelligent individuals buy into such crap as Rogers has to peddle.


thegunny, 419
--
Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Gunny G's Archive/Bookmarks @ FURL...

Here is Gunny G's Archive/Bookmarks @ FURL...
CLICK-HERE!!!!!

FURL RSS Feed Below...
Post To Your Own Site, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

The Marine Professional Private

http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook1207.htm
~~~~~

U. S. Marines In Action: Tales of the Old Corps, 1773-1953

Ten major wars and two hundred minor actions comprise the history of the United States Marine Corps, and parallel the history of America itself. "U.S. Marines in Action" provides a comprehensive and stirring account of the activities of the military corps that has become synonymous with guts and glory. Fehrenbach dramatizes the incredible heroism of the leathernecks over two centuries of peacekeeping missions in every quarter of the globe.

FOREWORD

This book does not purport to be a history of the United States Marine Corps, which has served in twelve major wars and more than two hundred lesser actions.

It is, instead, the record of certain significant Marine actions which illustrate Marine history as a whole. These incidents and battles do not have significance for Marines alone, but for all Americans.

They are part of our own history, our national story. However, they have largely been forgotten, because Americans have an imperfect sense of our past.

The men in these pages run curiously to type, as that splendid communicator on U.S. Marines, Colonel Thomason wrote. Most of them are professional soldiers; many are of that ubiquitous type without which no standing military body can exist: the professional private.

The gallantry of Marine officers is well-documented. The efficiency of Marine NCOs is indisputable. But still, without the professional private there would be no Marine Corps. He is the man who gets and does the dirty jobs. He is the man who carries them through, without much pay, with little recognition.

He is the Marine who sweats on the rifle range while the drums are silent, and the fires of patriotism not yet lit. He is not the gallant volunteer who rushes into the grandeur and tragedy of war, then, when the war is done, says to hell with it till next time.

He knows, as surely as the sun must rise, there will be a next time, and he prepares for it.

He likes the comradeship of the men around him; he likes the close-knit, parochial community of arms. If war is his occupation, the service is his home. Above all else, the most important thing in his life is the Corps. The Corps gives his life meaning; in return, he gives it his life. And it is a fact that many men, reservists and sometimes Marines, find their service as the defining moment of their lives. Once a Marine, always a Marine.

The men in these pages generally are not imaginative, nor are they sensitive to all the currents around them. Political correctness passed them by. Those who constantly visualize their own blood staining the earth rarely become professional soldiers. Since war is their occupation, most of these men do not much wonder at the tasks they are asked to do. They do not muse over the metaphysical or the meaning of it all, nor does combat come to them as a shock. Their eye on the enemy, until he is proven dead.

When this book was researched most of the Marines depicted in these actions were still living. Most--this was a different age and culture--for various reasons had no wish to be named. Therefore many names were changed. For example, the man identified as Corporal Cherry Reed in the Okinawa action, was the Honorable Blair "Bruzzy" Reeves, last Justice of the Texas Court of Appeals. When the book was first printed, he was entering on his political career and asked me to change his name, so that no one might think he was trading on his heroism. Aurtre temps, autre moeurs.

In the Old Corps few men got medals for doing their job--unlike today, when a soldier who has never heard a shot fired in anger may sprout rows of ribbons.

The names of officers, company commanders and above, which are recorded in history, have not been changed.

Few of these men are now alive. However, Lieutenant Colonel Ray Davis, now General, USMC-retired, was still erect and hearty when I saw him at the proceedings of the United States Naval Institute where I spoke in March, 1999.

Yet, the breed survives. Old and new, the country and the Corps have always needed this breed of man throughout our past.

We shall need him again.

--T.R.F.

June, 1999

~~~~~

http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook1207.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Southerners And Wars of Yankee Imperialism...by Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Southerners and Wars of Yankee Imperialism

http://www.flyoverpress.com/southernersandwarsofyankeeimperialism.htm

by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

On the 27th of November, 2006 FlyoverPress.com carried the essay “Death by
Government: The Missing Chapter” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo114.html).

In the essay DiLorenzo points out that history records the extent to which
governments have committed mass murder of their own citizens during the
twentieth century—U.S.S.R.: 20 million; China: 65 million; Vietnam: 1
million; North Korea: 2 million; Cambodia: 2 million; Eastern Europe: 1
million; Latin America: 150,000; Africa: 1.7 million; Afghanistan: 1.5
million; Nazi Germany’s 21 million civilian murders and many others. After
reviewing the literature covering these mass murders, he notes that:

“The glaring omission is the 300,000 (Southern) Americans who were killed
by the Lincoln regime from 1861–1865. According to some conservative
estimates, some 50,000 Southern civilians were also killed…For (attempting
to leave the union) they had to be invaded, killed by the hundreds of
thousands, conquered, occupied, and re-educated over and over again.”

My editorial comment was something to the effect that one can not deny the
effectiveness of that "re-education." How else do you explain the fact
that young, peach faced, Southern kids have died in gross disproportion to
their numbers in the over all population in all of the Yankee occupation
government's imperialistic wars since then?

Smokey offered an answer:

“It is the urge to eat at the same table.

“It is something I have wondered about for most of my life. Nearly every
relative I have still has strong emotional ties to the Confederacy. And
yet, they (we) enlist at the first opportunity. I would posit that human
nature is more likely the root of such contradictive behavior than
re-education, or at least part and parcel to the phenomenon.

“The South was, and to an extent is, a warrior culture. Young men raised
on the values of warriors look for an outlet. They will look for the good
to justify the cause, and ignore the contradictions. And once your
grandfather or father or uncle or cousin does it..... it's that much
easier. The urge to follow in the footsteps of heroes is strong, even when
your heroes later say, "don't do it, it's a fool's choice."

“When you grow up in a family full of veterans, dead and living, there is
a hell of an urge to be able to eat at the same table and talk as an equal
among men/warriors.

“Until those values that make Southern culture worthwhile are dead and
dispersed, Southern men will answer the call, and ignore the
contradictions at the heart of the matter—or, until the call is sounded
again, by their own nation, for true freedom.”

This seems to be a case of old Smokey just not being quite ready yet to
admit that the whole damned clan has been duped.

In all seriousness (although chiding Smokey is great fun) this raises
questions that are much to important to be so flightily brushed aside.
Besides, I too feel honored to sit at that table. In fact, the only men I
care to associate with are from that mold. Smokey’s take is not
necessarily incompatible with mine—it just does not get to answers for the
ultimate question. Where did the clan get the idea in the first place?
What was ultimately responsible?

Before attempting to get to the bottom of those questions, I need to
clarify some of the terms. “Culture” and “values” are NOT a part of “human
nature?” Race and culture are commonly confused and, as a result, are
improperly used as synonyms. Race is genetically determined. Genes
determine the morphology and physiology of the organs of the body. That,
of course, includes the brain which influences certain fundamental
behaviors (basic intelligence and the propensity for crime, for example).
In much the same way, “human nature” (or call it nature’s law or the
nature of man, if you will) is universal. It applies to all men at all
places and in all times. Murder and mayhem are violations of “nature’s
law.”

On the other hand, “culture” and “values” are learned behaviors. Culture
is the sum total of everything (art, music, language, literature, etc)
that characterizes a group of people. As such, it is learned. Again,
history supports this hypothesis with regard to “Southern culture” and
military service to the Yankee occupier. Serving in the Yankee occupier’s
military was NOT a part of Southern culture in 1865. (How many Southern
males were willing to voluntarily join the genocide of the Plains Indian
using the same tactics that had been suffered upon them and their
families?) Apparently that “value” (or “cultural trait”) has changed as is
evidenced by the fact that Southerners have died in much greater
proportion than their representation in the general population in all of
the Yankee occupier’s modern imperialistic wars.

So, if the “warrior culture” is not genetic but learned behavior, and if
it is passed down through generations, then at some point in time, a
(some) member(s) of the clan had to be persuaded-taught that somehow
sacrificing himself in the name of Yankee Imperialism was a good and noble
deed. How did that happen?

The key has to lie somewhere within the apparatus and nature of the State
itself. Every State to have ever come into existence did so through
conquest, expropriation and exploitation—history records no exception.

Coercive exploitation creates victims (malcontents). Yet on the other
hand, the existence of the State ultimately depends on public opinion. It
is impossible to quell resistance with force alone, especially in the
normal cases where small minorities expropriate and exploit much larger
groups of people than themselves. Obviously, such an operation (as State
sponsored robbery and murder) must have public support in addition to a
coercive force capability.

Most of the population must believe that the State is legitimate. Public
opinion in support of the State acts as a counterbalance to the resistance
of victimized property owners and leaves the appearance that resistance is
futile. So, the State’s goal is to maximize wealth and income acquired by
exploitation. And to do this it must create favorable public opinion as to
its own legitimacy.

There are two primary methods that the state uses to accomplish this goal.
The first is ideological propaganda. The State spends a great deal of time
and stolen resources on persuading the public that things are not really
what they appear to be—e.g. It must exploit its subjects in order to make
(or keep) them “free;” Taxes are really just “paying our fair share;” The
“social contract” is a real one—even though nobody will put it into
writing; “We” are the government and, therefore, rule ourselves; There
would be no law and order or security in the homeland if it were not for
the State; Without the State the poor would all starve and minorities
would never be able to find a job; etc etc etc ad nauseum

Another technique the State uses to create favorable public opinion is
redistribution. Instead of being strictly a parasite, the State
redistributes a portion of its extorted property to people outside its own
apparatus. Of course, doing something nice for people is NOT the idea. The
idea is to corrupt them into being supportive. This is done for the
purpose of securing the existence and expansion of exploitation and
expropriation. These redistributive measures are applied to the production
of security (police, military, and the judicial system), transportation,
communication, affirmative action, health and welfare, and so fourth.

But most important to this thesis is education. As above, the State
depends, for its very survival, on public opinion with regard to its
legitimacy. Therefore, it absolutely must eliminate any unfavorable
ideological competition and insure that statist ideologies are propagated.
Thus, the loop is closed as this is accomplished by the State’s
redistributive provision of educational services.

So where, exactly, did the clan get the idea that “service” to the
occupier is noble and good? The process began somewhere along about the
loyalty oath that was forced upon a tired and defeated people during
reconstruction. But the Yankee propagandists soon discovered that less
coercive means were more effective. Thus, the forming of State-favorable
public opinion is the sole purpose for the existence of the government’s
schools—turning out little lock-step payers of “their fair share.” It is
the only reason those schools have elaborate playing fields and athletic
facilities—to produce strong male children willing to charge headlong into
machine gun fire on behalf of the lenders of blood money and their
benefactors. It is the only reason kids say the “pledge of allegiance.” It
is why war is glorified in all manner of media. It is why history books
are, at best, a collection of half-truths and often outright lies—all of
which aggrandize the State.

If we are ever to stop the robbery and murder, we must withdraw our
“public support.” In other words, we of the clan must UN-reconstruct
ourselves.

--
Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Chesty Puller...On "LOYALTY DOWN"

Gunny G's
Globe and Anchor
Ye Olde Salts Tavern On The Web!
By
R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952 (Plt #437) -1972
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chesty Puller On "Loyalty Down"

Puller: "I also learned that this loyalty to one's Corps travels both ways, up and down."
The following is in relation to the well-known Ribbon Creek/S/Sgt Matthew McKeon trial at MCRD, Parris Island, SC, in 1956

Amid a nationwide public outcry regarding the whole matter of the drownings in particular and Marine Corps training practices in general, LtGen Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller was recalled to active duty to testify at the trial regarding Marine training and tradition. Mrs. Puller protested to her husband citing previous trouble and controversy in Puller's career. Puller told her, "...The important thing is the Marine Corps. If we let 'em, they'll tear it to pieces. Headquarters won't speak up. It's my duty to do it."

At the trial, Puller was asked questions pertaining to his own military service, the mission of the Marine Corps, the most important element of Marine training, etc. In part, Puller replied that:, "...The definition of military training is success in battle. In my opinion, it is the only objective of military training..."
He quoted Napoleon. "He stated that the most important thing in military training is discipline. Without discipline an army becomes a mob."
Puller was asked what he had learned here (PISC) as a recruit. He replied, "Well, the main thing--that I have rememberd all my life--is the definition of espirit de corps. Now my definition--that I was taught, that I've always believed in--is that espirit de corps means love for one's military legion. In my case the United States Marine Corps. I also learned that this loyalty to one's Corps travels both ways, up and down.

"Q: Now, general, I want you to assume that what is the evidence in this case is a fact. That on a Sunday evening a drill instructor took a platoon that was undisciplined and lacked spirit and on whom he' tried other methods of discipline. And that for purposes of teaching discipline and instilling morale he took that platoon into a marsh or creek--all the way in front of his troops--would you consider that oppression?
A: In my opinion it is not."
"Q: So, in your opinion, was this act of this drill instructor in leading his troops, under those conditions and for that purpose, good or bad military practice?
A: Good...
...I would train my troops as I thought--as I knew they should be trained--regardless of a directive."
"Q: ...I lead these recruits into water over their heads and I lose six of those men by drowning. Would you say that some action should be taken against me?
A: I would say that this night march was and is a deplorable accident."
"Q: Would you take any action against me if I were the one who did that, if you were my Commanding Officer, sir?
A: ...I think, from what I read in the papers yesterday of the testimony of General Pate before this court, that he agrees and regrets that this man was ever ordered tried by general court-martial."

"Puller went into the noncom's club that night with Berman, two Marine generals and other officers; the big crowd stood, shouting until he spoke:
'I've talked enough for today. This will be my last request. Do your duty and the Marine Corps will be as great as it has always been for another thousand years.'
The applause was deafening."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re
The book, " Marine, The Life of Lt. Gen. Lewis B. (Chesty) Puller, USMC (Ret.)"
By Burke Davis, 1962, Bantam
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More "Chesty" Stories Here!!!!!
Gunny G's Sites & Forums
~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Semper Fi Vs. "SEMPER FIDELIS"!

I recall vividly a day in 1953 at Tent Camp #3,
at CJHP, when M/Sgt Tony Virginia pointed out to
me that "Semper Fi" did not mean Semper Fidelis;
it was not an abbreviation of Semper Fidelis, nor
did it have anything positive in common with
Semper Fidelis. He then went further into detail
regarding just what Semper Fi was and meant. It
had apparently come into use with the influx of
great numbers of new Marines during WW II into
what had been a very small U.S. Marine Corps.

The Top stated that, in many cases, promotions
had become much faster than previously experienced
for peacetime Marines. At one point early in
WW II, Marine enlisted began to wear chevrons
only on the left sleeve, due to a policy of
conservation of supplies. He advised that the term
Semper Fi came into being with a gesture
reminiscent of the old Italian salute, and he
demonstarted this by slapping his right hand over
the left upper arm (over the chevron) while he
exclaimed the words "Semper Fi!"
This was obviously intended as an obscene term
and gesture. The above noted conversation with
Top Virginia, now more than 50+
years ago made an impression on me.

Though I have sometimes used both the correct
Semper Fidelis as well as, sometimes, using the,
what has become the usual, Semper Fi, I have
always preferred Semper Fidelis, and for obvious
reasons.

People in general, and Marines too, pretty much
just accept the current customs, explanations, if any, and norms as they
are without question. Sometimes, however,
something occurs which calls attention to certain
things that we all have just accepted as is. I
think this is one of those times, and for myself,
I choose to go with Semper Fidelis, and pass by
the (now traditional, incorrect as it may be)
Semper Fi.

I have recently noted with interest the following
posted to the Fifth Marine Division website...

"ANOTHER THING: WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE MARINES
TO USE THE PROPER
PHRASE/MOTTO OF THE U.S.M.C. AND THAT IS "SEMPER
FIDELIS" - "ALWAYS
FAITHFUL".

NOT SEMPER FI - WHAT IN HELL IS ALWAYS "FI"..
WHAT DOES "FI' MEAN??

USE SEMPER FIDELIS

DEAL OR NO DEAL

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SEMPER FI MEANT IN THE
40'S AND 50'S, IT
MEANT THINGS LIKE I GOT MINE, BUDDY BOY, OR GET
F----D, OR GO TO H--L
THATS AN INSULT TO YOUR FELLOW MARINES, AND IT IS
DEROGATORY.. WE
AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT BEING POLITICALY CORRECT,
BUT WE MUST HAVE
FAITH IN THE "BROTHERHOOD."

MARINES CAN'T LIVE ON THAT KIND OF FOOD, NOT IN
TODAYS WORLD.. YOU
CAN'T GIVE A TERRORIST ANY KIND OF OPENING.

DON'T EVER FORGET THAT WE ARE A "BROTHERHOOD",
AND THAT MEANS WE
NEED EACH OTHER, PERIOD.

ARE WE WORRIED, "HELL NO, WE ARE MARINES!."

SO, DEAL OR NO DEAL..

SEMPER FIDELIS"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fifthmarinedivisionww2/message/3609>
~~~~~
And, too, there is....

"When did the term "Semper Fi," an abbreviation?
of Semper Fidelis, come
into being?

Although not exactly recorded in history, one
story stands out.

Sometime shortly after the Beirut bombing in
1983, then–Commandant of
the Marine Corps General Paul X. Kelley was
visiting a wounded Marine
in the hospital. The lad shook the Commandant's
hand and then
scribbled the words "Semper Fi" on a piece of
paper. It was the
Marine's way of saying "Semper Fidelis." Gen
Kelley became emotional
and said, "Lord, where do we get such men?" The
press picked up on it.

After that the term "Semper Fi" was given new
life and a new meaning
among Marines. However, for older Marines, the
term had a slightly
different meaning. Today while one understands
"Semper Fi" to be a
Marine greeting, in the past. "Semper Fi, Mac"
meant "I got mine, how
you doing?"
Ref
Leatherneck magazine FAQ
http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/faq.htm>
http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/faq.htm> "
~~~~~
And the following is from one of my own previous
postings on this topic...

"Since then, although I have gone along with the
herd at times and used
the phrase, I have always preferred Semper
Fidelis, Always Faithful,
even though many generations of newer boots have
assumed it to be just
an abbreviation of Semper Fidelis. Sort of like
in the '60s, when
"Sorry 'Bout Dat" (meaning screw you...) also
came into use for the
general population.

See the book, Semper Fi, Mac by Henry Berry,
1982, Qill...About The
Title...where Berry says practically the same
thing as I have written
above. There are many more references to this in
many books, etc.

There have been many other bastardizations of
Marine words, words
like, "Gung Ho," EGA for Eagle, Globe and Anchor
, etc.
With the big enlisted rank structure change of
1960 came the problem
of the troops calling one another by the
so-called E-numeric pay
grades Vs. their actual rank titles, e.g., E-4 for
Corporal, E-5 for
Sergeant, etc. And that problem persists to this
day. Gotta be careful about slang--amazing what
can become "tradition," though
unintended and unofficial.

I take heart that you old salts are seeking to
bring this to light on
your 5th Marine Division website, and it is being
discussed."
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
SEE ALSO: "Draw The Pay - Talk The Lingo!"


Semper Fidelis
Always Faithful

R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952--1972

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Memorial Day Tribute: "Hey Grimes, What's Up Dude?"

Memorial Day: Hey Grimes, What's Up Dude?

FlyoverPress.com

Gary Lynn Grimes--friend and fellow Marine--memory rest at Panel 09W,
Line 52. His spirit resides in Valhalla. He is symbolic of many, many
similar friends, comrades in arms, brothers, nephews and, yes, a few
sisters.

It is a tradition here at FlyoverPress to publish this small tribute to
all of them on or near Memorial Day.

Semper Fi

thegunny, 419

Hey Grimes, what's up dude?
http://www.flyoverpress.com/heygrimes.htm

By Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his
blood with me Shall be my brother.--Shakespeare, Henry IV, Act IV,
Scene 3

Hey Grimes, what's up? How are things going for you up there in
Valhalla? With Memorial Day coming, I thought I'd drop you a line. I
don't talk about it much, but there has not been a single day in over
32 years that I haven't thought about you.

I remember the first time we met. It was in Staging Battalion at Camp
Pendleton. At the ripe old age of 24, I was a good deal older than
average. You've heard of the generation gap? Well, I was the gap. I had
little in common with the guys of my rank, with whom I was allowed to
socialize. But, although you were still very young, you were different--
an enthusiastic, bubbling, peached faced kid from Amarillo, TX.
Remember our big plans for me to teach you to ride bulls and bareback
horses when we got back to the world? Boy, what a couple of dreamers!
When we got in country, you went to 5th Marines and I went to 2nd
Battalion, 11th Marines. Since my Battalion and your Regimental
Headquarters were both at An Hoa, we had several chances to see each
other and renew our friendship. Any time that you were there, you
always made a point of finding me, as I did you when I would pass
through.

I'll never forget the last time I saw you. It was about a month before
we were due to rotate. You had been out with a CAP unit and showed up
at my hooch wearing a flight suit and sporting a 45 in a shoulder
holster. I didn't ask where you got the flight suit and shoulder
holster--just figured that you had traded some air-winger an AK (or
something) for them. I'll never forget the last conversation we had.

"Hey Grimes, what's up dude?"

"Man, I'm being MedEvaced to Japan!"

I checked you out. You seemed to have all your appendages and didn't
seem to have any extra holes. "MedEvaced? What for?"

"Man, I'm eat up with parasites."

"Parasites! Man that's great!!! By the time they get you to Japan and
get you cleaned up, it'll be time to rotate."

We knew that you had it made so we celebrated. As I recall, we snuck
out into Duc Duc and captured a couple of liters of Gook banana rum.
What a night! The next morning I sent you off. "See ya back in the
world dude!"

When rotation day came and I got on the freedom bird, I was fully
expecting to see you in a few days. The first morning back on Okinawa,
I ran into Piasaki. Remember him? He was a mutual friend that had gone
through Staging Battalion with us. That's another conversation I'll
never forget.

"Hey man, did you know that Grimes is dead?"

"Naw, bullshit, Grimes ain't dead."

"Yea, he is too."

"No he ain't. I saw him less than a month ago and he was being
MedEvaced to Japan."

"I'm telling you he's dead. I kicked his body the next morning. I was
part of the relief force that got too them right after daylight. The VC
overran his CAP unit and killed them all. It looked like Grimes had
been one of the last left fighting. He had about 30 AK rounds point
blank in his chest."

I refused to believe it. I just came home and tried to burry it. I
never made any attempt to contact you or your family--guess I didn't
want to believe it. Then finally, in 1983, I went to the wall and there
you were—Panel 09W, Line 52, Gary Lynn Grimes. Born 01 June 1949 in
Amarillo, Texas. Died 13 June 1970 in Quang Nam, South Vietnam. I
cried.

It has only been just recently that I located your family. They are
still in Amarillo and, from what little I know, seem to be doing well.
Although I have your parents' and brother's addresses and phone
numbers, I have still made no attempt to contact any of them. That is a
wrong that terribly needs to be righted and, I promise, I will…someday…
As far as what's going on in the world, you wouldn't believe what
they've done to our country. Remember all those greasy headed hippies
that we used to hate so much? Well, they're all grown up now and are in
control of all our major institutions and all levels of government—
everything from Congress to law enforcement to the public schools.
Hell, one of them even became President. They are stealing our
property, murdering our citizens, and generally making a mockery out of
the Constitution—all under the color of law. What a mess! Oh well,
hopefully, there'll be plenty of time to fill you in on the details of
all that later.

So, how's it going for you? I suspect that promotions come pretty slow
up there--after all, you are amongst the cream of the cream. But,
knowing you, I'd bet that you are at least a Battalion Sergeant Major
by now. When the Supreme Commandant decides to cut me a new set of
orders, I'm hoping He'll consider me worthy of joining you. Maybe
you'll have room for a good Company First Sergeant in your outfit.
Hope to see you up there dude!

Semper Fi
LaBaume, Jimmy T
Cpl USMC
--
Think secession!

http://flyoverpress.com/ News you will not get from anywhere on the
mainstream media.

To manage your subscription, send an e-mail to: editor@flyoverpress.com

Sponsored by:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
http://www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior's Press.Inc.
Military manuals and outrageous books.
http://www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins and Emblems, Inc.
http://www.pinsandemblems.com
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
Re
WWW.Flyoverpress.com

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He wishes to make it abundantly clear that he does not speak for Sul Ross State University and Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

"Gunny" LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he "simply got tired of being guilty of treason."

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or head anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.


~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Regarding Retired Military and The UCMJ....

Recently there has been much discussion, brouhaha, regarding the so-called Revolt of The Generals, and the question has come up again and again as to whether or not these generals could be court-martialed for their statements, etc. Well, some say yes; some say no; and some say, yes, but....

Most articles on this subject have said very little as to whether or not retired military personnel can actually be prosecuted for their statements. The following articles, however, do address this specifically.

So in an effort to make some sense of whether or not retired military can be prosecuted, the following articles on this subject are hereby presented for your perusal.

Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952(Plt # 437) - 1972
~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~


MILINET: Retired Military ARE Subject to the UCMJ--Lt. Gen. Bob Springer, USAF (ret.) Inbox

MAJUSMCRET@aol.com
to undisclosed-re.
More options 7:36 am (1� hours ago)
Weekly Standard
May 22, 2006
Generally Speaking

Frederick W. Kagan's "Let the Generals Speak" (May 8) wrongly claims that retired military officers are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. All those receiving retired pay are subject to the UCMJ.

Lt. Gen. Bob Springer, USAF (ret.), Pinehurst, N.C.

Frederick W. Kagan responds: I readily acknowledge that I erred in stating that retired officers are not subject to the UCMJ. The question of the applicability of Article 88--which bans contemptuous speech directed at superiors and civilian leaders--is, however, more complicated. Apart from the fact that there are no cases of attempted prosecutions for violating this article, the standard for preferring such charges is different from the one required to accuse active duty officers. To prosecute a retired officer, the military would have to show that the words used "create a clear and present danger" leading to evils "that Congress has a right to prevent." This hurdle is much higher than the requirement to show for active duty officers that "the speech interferes with . . . the orderly accomplishment of the mission or presents a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops." Even discussing an Article 88 charge in the context of the retired generals' statements is absurd.
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Previously Posted)



April 27, 2006, 7:10 a.m.
A Dereliction of Duty
Military officers shouldn't try to be policymakers.

Criticism of Donald Rumsfeld by the uniformed military is nothing new. As I noted a year ago, most of Rumsfeld's critics are uniformed officers unhappy with the changes he has wrought during his tenure as secretary of defense.

But the rhetoric has notched up recently. Several retired generals have denounced Rumsfeld and called for his resignation over Iraq. Much of the language they have used is intemperate, and some is downright contemptuous. For instance, Marine general Anthony Zinni, Tommy Franks's predecessor as commander of Central Command — the organization responsible for implementing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — has described the actions of the Bush administration as ranging from "true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility" to "lying, incompetence, and corruption." He has called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically." One has to go back to 1862 to find a senior military officer condemning a civilian superior so harshly.

Some have expressed concern in the past when retired generals have campaigned publicly for a presidential candidate, but this unprecedented attack against Rumsfeld is far more serious. While there are no legal restrictions that prevent retired members of the military — even recently retired members — from speaking out on public policy, doing so now and in this way is imprudent.

The open (and often intemperate) criticism leveled by these officers against Rumsfeld is not only feeding defeatism at home, but is also adversely affecting the military that these officers purport to love: Aside from demoralizing the soldiers and Marines who have sweated and bled on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, this behavior has weakened the cohesion of the active-duty officer corps by ultimately forcing them to take sides on the Rumsfeld affair.

Although one would not know it from the press, Rumsfeld has many admirers within the uniformed services. Some critics of Rumsfeld have called his uniformed defenders "Courtney Massengales," a reference to a character in Anton Myrer's remarkable novel, Once an Eagle. In this novel, Courtney Massengale and Sam Damon represent two polar-opposite archetypes of the soldier: Damon is the dedicated citizen-soldier who is commissioned on the battlefield and, as he rises through the ranks to become a major general, never forgets his roots as an enlisted man. His life is one of dedicated service and loyalty to his subordinates. Massengale is Damon's nemesis, a West Point graduate who is really never a soldier at heart, but merely a careerist who advances himself at the expense of others.

Some of the officers who criticize Rumsfeld fancy themselves as noble and self-sacrificing, even as they paint the secretary's defenders as sellouts who have succumbed to the allure of promotion, prestige, and personal aggrandizement. Ralph Peters leveled a similar charge in his piece for the New York Post last week. But this is a slander.

There are fine officers on both sides of this issue, and pitting one group against another does nothing to enhance the security of the United States.

In addition, such public criticism by senior retired officers is undermining healthy civil-military relations. The cornerstone of U.S. civil-military relations is civilian control of the military, a principle that goes back to the American Revolution and the precedent established by George Washington, who willingly subordinated himself and his army to civilian authority.

The public attack on Rumsfeld by retired officers flies in the face of this tradition. Should active-duty and retired officers of the Army and Navy in 1941 publicly have debated the lend-lease program, the occupation of Iceland, or the Europe-first strategy? Should generals in 1861 have discussed in public their opinions of Lincoln's plan to re-provision Fort Sumter, aired their views regarding the right of the South to secede from the Union, or argued the pros and cons of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation?

Many of Rumsfeld's critics have invoked the very important book by H. R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam , the subject of which is how the Joint Chiefs failed to challenge Defense Secretary Robert McNamara adequately during the Vietnam War. Many serving officers believe the book effectively makes the case that the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have more openly voiced their opposition to the Johnson administration's strategy of gradualism, and then resigned rather than carry out the policy.

But as Richard Kohn — an expert on U.S. civil-military relations and McMaster's academic adviser for the dissertation that became Dereliction of Duty — has observed, the book "neither says nor implies that the chiefs should have obstructed U.S. policy in Vietnam in any other way than by presenting their views frankly and forcefully to their civilian superiors, and speaking honestly to Congress when asked for their views. It neither states nor suggests that the chiefs should have opposed President Lyndon Johnson's orders and policies by leaks, public statements, or by resignation, unless an officer personally and professionally could not stand, morally and ethically, to carry out the chosen policy."

The misreading of Dereliction of Duty reinforces the increasingly widespread belief among officers that they should be advocates of particular policies rather than simply serving in their traditional advisory role. Kohn writes that a survey of officer and civilian attitudes and opinions undertaken by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies in 1998-99 discovered that "many officers believe that they have the duty to force their own views on civilian decision makers when the United States is contemplating committing American forces abroad." When "asked whether military leaders should be neutral, advise, advocate, or insist on having their way in the decision process" to use military force, 50 percent or more of the up-and-coming active-duty officers answered "insist," on the following issues: "setting rules of engagement, ensuring that clear political and military goals exist, developing an 'exit strategy,'" and "deciding what kinds of military units will be used to accomplish all tasks." In the context of the questionnaire, "insist" definitely implied that officers should try to compel acceptance of the military's recommendations.

There is, as well, a practical political problem resulting from such actions on the part of retired officers: a loss of confidence and trust in the military institution by the American people. Although Americans hold today's military in high regard, this will change if they come to view the military as just another special-interest group vying for more resources as it seeks to restrict how the civilian authorities use it, or if retired soldiers are perceived to be no different than the sort of political appointee who just left the administration and is now peddling a "tell all" book intended to settle scores with his adversaries.

The view of the soldier, no matter how experienced in military affairs he may be, is still restricted to the conduct of operations and military strategy. Civilian control of the military means at a minimum that it is the role of the statesman to take the broader view, deciding when political considerations take precedence over even the most pressing military matters. The soldier is a fighter and an adviser, not a policymaker.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.







http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200604270710.asp




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Could Rumsfeld Court-Martial the Retired Generals?

Surprisingly, yes.

By Fred Kaplan

Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:59 PM ET

Donald Rumsfeld has a notorious vindictive streak. How low will he stoop to pursue it? Let's put him to the test. If he wanted to get really brutal, Rumsfeld could convene a court-martial and prosecute the six retired generals who have been calling for his head. Military law, if read literally, permits him to do this. So, will he?

One of the assumptions surrounding the recent criticism of Rumsfeld is that the retired generals, unlike active-duty officers, are free to criticize the defense secretary without fear of reprisal. Surprisingly, this assumption is untrue. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, one of the many activities deemed punishable by court-martial is "contempt toward officials." This code of laws applies not just to active-duty officers but to retired ones, too. It's right there in Article 2, Section (a) (5): Persons subject to the UCMJ include "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay."

The key phrase is "entitled to pay." If you resign from the military, and thus give up all retirement pay and benefits, you're free from the clutches of military law. But if you retire and thus keep getting paid 50 percent to 75 percent of your peak active-duty salary (plus cost-of-living adjustments pegged to the consumer price index), you're still in the cage. (Many retirees learned this the hard way, when they were called back into service in Iraq.)

If Rumsfeld wanted to stick it to the retired generals who are daring to question his wisdom�Anthony Zinni, Greg Newbold, Paul Eaton, Charles Swannack, John Batiste, and John Riggs�he could invoke Article 88 of the military justice code, which reads:

Any commissioned officer [and, under Article 2, this includes any retired officer] who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation [!], or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [Italics and exclamation mark added.]

The military's Manual for Courts-Martial, the implementing document for the UCMJ, could be read as strengthening Rumsfeld's case against his critics, in two ways. First, in its elaboration of Article 88, the manual states:

It is immaterial whether the [contemptuous] words are used against the official in an official or private capacity.

In short, it's no defense for a retired general to say, "I'm just speaking as a private citizen."

Second, the manual notes:

Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article � aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

This is pretty shocking stuff. It means a lieutenant could get court-martialed for e-mailing all of his friends a newspaper or magazine story that's contemptuous of Rumsfeld. The six retired generals didn't merely give "broad circulation" to such stories. They wrote the stories, or gave on-the-record interviews to those who did, in publications with extremely broad circulation.

If Rumsfeld wanted to take this law literally and crack down, how could he go about it? Article 22, Section (a) states that a court-martial may be convened by, among others, the president, the secretary of defense, the "secretary concerned" (i.e., the official who's been the object of contempt), or any commanding officer designated by the secretary concerned or by the president. So, Secretary Rumsfeld or President Bush could set up a court-martial, or either of them could get a loyal henchman to do the dirty work. If the generals were found guilty, the maximum penalty under Article 88 is "dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for one year."

Now, before Secretary Rumsfeld and his small circle of friends start salivating, they should consider two things. First and most obvious, trying to court-martial these six generals would be stupid beyond all measure. Very few officers�and, as far as I can tell, no retired officers�have ever been prosecuted under Article 88. I'm hardly suggesting that Rumsfeld break precedent; nor am I predicting that he might. But if he wanted to interpret the law literally�as the Justice Department does when it prosecutes someone under the federal espionage statute for receiving classified information�this would let him bring down the hammer.

But second, Rumsfeld should take a closer look at Article 88. In fact, all officers, active and retired, should take a look. In its commentary on that article, the Manual for Courts-Martial notes:

If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

In other words, if officers (active or retired) merely criticize Rumsfeld, even emphatically, they are not violating military law, as long as they avoid "contemptuous" words. (I guess this means you should preface your remarks by saying, "With all due respect, sir � ") So, it turns out that military law�which actually protects most critical speech�may not be why active-duty officers won't harsh on Rumsfeld. They refrain from criticism of any sort not because they fear court-martial, but because they know their careers will hit a brick wall. They'll never be promoted; they'll probably be transferred to the Arctic Circle.

The open question is: What is the legal meaning of "contemptuous"? Article 88 offers no definition. Neither does the commentary in the Manual for Courts-Martial. The only guidance that the Defense Department's public-affairs office could come up with was this definition from The Military Judges' Benchbook, paragraph 3-12-1d:

"Contemptuous" means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness.

This sounds more like an 18th-century guide on gentlemen's etiquette than a modern-day casebook on military law. But if it is a crime, punishable by court-martial, to disdain Donald Rumsfeld, he could lock up half the Army officer corps.

sidebar

Return to article

According to Eugene Fidell, a lawyer with the National Institute of Military Justice, the last time Article 88 was invoked was 1967, during the Vietnam War, when Reservist Lt. Howe�off duty, out of uniform, and off base near a local university�carried a placard in an anti-war demonstration that read "End Johnson's Facist [sic] Aggression in Viet Nam." He was convicted for using "contemptuous words" against the president (and, under Article 133, for "conduct unbecoming an officer"). The Court of Military Appeals affirmed the verdict, ruling that suppression of his speech was essential to prevent a military "man on a white horse" from challenging "civilian control of the military."

The only time a retired officer has been so much as charged with this offense was in 1942, when a retired Army lieutenant colonel who was opposed to America's intervention in World War II gave a speech impugning President Roosevelt's loyalty. The Army charged him under Article 88 but then withdrew the charges to avoid giving him and his views further publicity.
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2140616/

Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC


~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

SPEAKING OF MILITARY OATHS OF ENLISTMENT, OFFICER OATHS, ETC.

SPEAKING OF MILITARY OATHS OF ENLISTMENT, OFFICER OATHS, ETC.

More on the Service Oath Inbox

FlyoverPress.com
More options 9:31 am (2� hours ago)
Yes indeed, interesting stuff.

thegunny, 419

Heya gunny thought you might be interested

While doing some research on oaths taken by individuals joining the
military I ran across the original oaths given to the officers of the
continental armies. This is the original from the revolutionary war,
which applied to military and civilian national officers. The first,
passed on 21 October 1776, read:

"I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America,
namely,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free,
independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people
thereof
owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great
Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience
to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power,
support,
maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king,
George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their
abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United
States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other
office
which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their
authority, with fidelity and Honor, and according to the best of my
skill and understanding. So help me God."

Very specific about the definition of the United States isn't it.

A revised version was voted and passed on 3 February 1778, reads;

"I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free,
independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof
owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great
Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience
to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my
power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against
the
said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and
their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said
United
States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity,
according
to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

The first oath of military service under the Constitution was approved
by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress).
It
applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and
privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts:

1. "I,______, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I
will support the constitution of the United States."

2. "I,______, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear
true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them
honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers
whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the
United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed
over
me."

This version stayed in effect for non-coms and enlisted until it was
changed in 1950. The officer�s oath however went thru many changes. In
1830 the officer oath was changed to:

"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do
solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the
United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and
faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and
observe
and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and
articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

Then again in 1862 to:

I,_______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms
against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I
have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement
to
persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought
nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office
whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to
the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any
pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the
United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or
affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the
same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so
help
me God."

This is the first instance of an enemy "foreign and domestic". An act
of
13 May 1884 reverted the officer�s oath to:

"I,________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign or domestic; that
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office
on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

This version was used until 1959. You will note that none of these
have
any way to rescind the oath (not even the one we use at present).
These
oaths are for
life, when you take off the uniform, they don't go away.

Jim Kelly Huff
Empire Ga
--

~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ref
LtGen Greg Newbold recently, in a news article, pointed out the distinction between the oath of enlistment for enlisted Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen, and the Oath taken by officers.

"What are the current oaths of enlistment and oaths for officers?

Enlisted: I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Officer: (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Ref
FAQ Leatherneck
http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/faq.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A leader's responsibility "is to give voice to those who can't - or don't have the opportunity to - speak," General Newbold wrote. "Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important."
-Gen Newbold

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clipping: " With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't�or don't have the opportunity to�speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important."
their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath....
REF/LINK, CLICK HERE!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Think secession!

http://flyoverpress.com/> News you will not get from anywhere on the
mainstream media.

To manage your subscription, send an e-mail to: editor@flyoverpress.com

Sponsored by:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
http://www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com>

The Warrior's Press.Inc.
Military manuals and outrageous books.
http://www.warriorspress.com>

American Lapel Pins and Emblems, Inc.
http://www.pinsandemblems.com
~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

HAND SALUTE BY VETERANS and RETIRED MILITARY - PASS THE WORD ON DOWN THE LINE, PLEASE!!!!!

Should Veterans (Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines....) "Hand Salute," or simply use the gesture of placing the right hand over the heart?

Major General Vern Lewis, USA (Ret.) believes he has the answer!

The following is from a widely circulated e-mail regarding a suggestion by MajGen Vern Lewis, USA (Ret.) who, with others, is sponsoring a movement regarding hand saluting vice hand over heart for Veterans/Retired Military who choose to do so....

Since there is apparently no formal organization behind General Lewis' movement, it is hoped that other military-oriented websites will make every effort to get the word out to all hands and miitary organizations, etc., as requested by the general.
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
I gathered some 16 of my old military friends who agreed to sponsor
a movement for Veterans to salute rather than place their hands over
their heart when honoring the flag, fallen comrades, and/or the
country. I have some from each of the four principal services. Three
of them were former Vice Chiefs or Assistant Commandants of their
services, and several were former CINC's.

We refer to saluting when we do the pledge to the flag, when the
National Colors pass or are presented, when the National Anthem or
honors are played, or when taps are played and firing squads or guns
render honors. We got MOAA magazine to ask veterans what they
preferred, hand over the heart or saluting. When last I looked, some
583 veteran respondents had voted 81% in favor of the salute. In
addition, my email address was in the questionnaire and I've had
about 150 responses, with all but a dozen or so in favor of the
salute. Obviously an overwhelming majority of the veterans want to
salute.

There are no regulations telling us veterans what we can and can't
do in this matter. If we decide we want to salute, who will dare to
tell us "no"?

It is a matter of personal choice. We've earned the right to render
a salute. Now the challenge is to get the word out. I believe the
unit and branch associations are the best way. The commanders of the
American Legion and VFW never answered my emails, presuming they
even got them. If we can get this started it will take on a life of
its own. Those who object can continue the hand over the heart
thing. Gradually the custom will change, as well it should.

Just imagine thousands of fans saluting at NFL, MBA, and Major
League Baseball games when the National Anthem is played. It will
telegraph a message to all others of how many have served this
country in the Armed Forces---it will be a positive and patriotic
message.

You can help by putting the word out in your organizations, which
are made up of patriots like you and me. Thanks, my friend.

Vernon B.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GyG Response:

I, personally, think this suggestion by MajGen Vern Lewis, USA (Ret.) is a good one. As he points out, there are no regulations regarding veterans and military retirees on this specific issue. It is a matter, therefore, of personal choice, and those still preferring the hand over the heart are not affected.

Those who bring up such things as various forms of civilain attire, naval personnel not saluting indoors/outdoors, covered/uncovered, etc., are just confusing the issue--a very simple issue to begin with. Whether or not a salute would be appropriate in certain/all situations would obviously to be within the judgment of each individual.

General Lewis states, in part....
"There are no regulations telling us veterans what we can and can't do in this matter. If we decide we want to salute, who will dare to tell us "no"? It is a matter of personal choice. We've earned the right to render a salute. Now the challenge is to get the word out. I believe the unit and branch associations are the best way. The commanders of the American Legion and VFW never answered my emails, presuming they even got them. If we can get this started it will take on a life of its own. Those who object can continue the hand over the heart thing. Gradually the custom will change, as well it should."

I recall that in boot camp in 1952, we were instructed by one of our DIs, a corporal, on saluting. Among many other things, he pointed out that a salute was basically a form of military greeting, and that it was not uncommon for enlisted Marines to salute other Marines both well beyond the prescribed saluting distance, and in civilian clothes. I have since done so myself on many occasions.
-RWG
~~~~
~~~~
By coincidence this comes up now as it has for a long time been my own opinion that veterans, including retired military, should render the hand salute rather than placing their right hand over the heart, at least those desiring to do so. To the military man what could be more natural than saluting?! This, then, being so for most, why do we just stand at attention, hand on heart, etc. while we really feel that we should be rendering the hand salute?

The answer is that we ASSUME that that is NOT the correct thing to do, not acceptable, against regulations, etc. NOT SO!, and General
Lewis makes that point clear in his email, above. Too often we assume things that are just not not so, and this is one of those times.

Gen Lewis' piece has been widely circulated on the Internet these last few days. His own poll on MOAA has shown responses overwhelmingly in favor of the hand salute over the hand over heart. Other messageboards, e-mails that I have viewed indicate the same.

Some do not seem to understand that by many of us (or a few of us) changing to the hand salute would NOT then preclude those who wish to continue their preference of placing their right hand over the heart. It is just NOT an "either/or" situation; each can read this information and decide for themselves what he/she wishes to do. Again, still others tend to make this simple and clear issue complicated by bringing up, for instance, naval personnel not saluting indoors, covered/uncovered, etc. None of these things affect the issue as stated by Gen Lewis; individuals will continue to use their best personal judgment in each case.

The main drawback in what Gen Lewis is attempting to do, I think, is in getting the word out to all veterans/retired miltary personnel. There is no organization behind this. But it has to be made clear that this suggestion of his does not constitute a change to any regulation at all. As he states, there is no regulation to begin with to preclude veterans.retirees from rendering the hand salute if we so choose! Those choosing the hand over heart are also free to do so.

So then, those of us who agree with the general, should make every effort to spread the word on this not just to individual veterans, but to military/veteran-related organizations.

NOTE:
For more information, responses from others, etc., please click on link/title at the top of this page and proceed to that link which has several responses at the bottom of that page.

Semper Fidelis
Dick G

Gunny G's....
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069/
~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~